UCD Students and The Lisbon Treaty

insert-gear

agree with above, and I'm voting yes

Pride Fighter

Good debate on Vincent Browne now. Has one of the UCD heads of arts on it. Joe Higgins kicked everyones ass though:)

errlloyd

Sure neutrality was an issue when we entered the ECC in the first place... Didn't make that a bad idea...

Het-Field

Are the L&H or LawSoc debating the issue in the coming weeks.

errlloyd

Lawsoc have Bertie Ahern and Mary Lou MacDonald coming in to debate it (aswell as a ton of other semi important speakers) I believe in the next week or two. So its not students debating, but surely its the next best thing.

(I'll put 10 euro on Mary Lou's head, dead not alive)

Het-Field

errlloyd wrote: »

Lawsoc have Bertie Ahern and Mary Lou MacDonald coming in to debate it (aswell as a ton of other semi important speakers) I believe in the next week or two. So its not students debating, but surely its the next best thing.

(I'll put 10 euro on Mary Lou's head, dead not alive)

Students should boycott this if Bertie is speaking.

Regardless of Lisbon etc, this is a man who drove this country to the brink of disaster. In fact, it may still prove to fall prey to disaster. Furthermore, he has no interest in taking responsibility for the mess, and still feels Ireland loves him.

errlloyd

Yeah defo, Bertie alone caused the world economic crisis.

You know when it was all beginning to go wrong, when we needed our leaders most. Thats when we pinned him into a tribunal and started ripping his life apart. Say what you want, I am going.

Het-Field

errlloyd wrote: »

Yeah defo, Bertie alone caused the world economic crisis.

You know when it was all beginning to go wrong, when we needed our leaders most. Thats when we pinned him into a tribunal and started ripping his life apart. Say what you want, I am going.

No it didnt. It started going wrong in 2004, when the PD influence in Govt was neutered, and Bertie surrounded himself with Yes Men like Biffo, and Cullen. At that point, Ireland started living off windfall taxes, while ignoring fiscal rectitude. There was no development of any sort of export market. The quick and easy money from VAT and Stamp Duty was enough to keep the Irish people quiet.

The world econonmic crisis is no longer relevant. Egypt is already in Growth, while the Green shoots have appeared in France and Germany. Ireland has no idea when it will return to growth. Ahernomics obliterated Irish competitiveness, created an unmanagable public defecit, and has given rise to the need for an NAMA, which either way will cost the Irish taxpayer for decades. The IMF,a nd OECD reports have highlighted that Bertie and Cowen's mismanagement is what cause our crisis.

He was hauled before the tribunal for a reason. However, that is irrelevant, as his poor economic management will be a far greater stain on his legacy

Breezer

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Good debate on Vincent Browne now. Has one of the UCD heads of arts on it. Joe Higgins kicked everyones ass though:)

I disagreed with him but at least he made an attempt to actually debate the treaty, unlike everyone else on the panel. I'm lost for words at the way the Yes side is campaigning. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, and I don't care if it's FF, FG or People Who Like To Take Their Gerbils For Walks For Europe doing it, it's still thick :mad:

Het-Field wrote: »

No it didnt. It started going wrong in 2004, when the PD influence in Govt was neutered, and Bertie surrounded himself with Yes Men like Biffo, and Cullen. At that point, Ireland started living off windfall taxes, while ignoring fiscal rectitude. There was no development of any sort of export market. The quick and easy money from VAT and Stamp Duty was enough to keep the Irish people quiet.

The world econonmic crisis is no longer relevant. Egypt is already in Growth, while the Green shoots have appeared in France and Germany. Ireland has no idea when it will return to growth. Ahernomics obliterated Irish competitiveness, created an unmanagable public defecit, and has given rise to the need for an NAMA, which either way will cost the Irish taxpayer for decades. The IMF,a nd OECD reports have highlighted that Bertie and Cowen's mismanagement is what cause our crisis.

He was hauled before the tribunal for a reason. However, that is irrelevant, as his poor economic management will be a far greater stain on his legacy

Well said.

Pride Fighter

Het-Field wrote: »

No it didnt. It started going wrong in 2004, when the PD influence in Govt was neutered, and Bertie surrounded himself with Yes Men like Biffo, and Cullen. At that point, Ireland started living off windfall taxes, while ignoring fiscal rectitude. There was no development of any sort of export market. The quick and easy money from VAT and Stamp Duty was enough to keep the Irish people quiet.

The world econonmic crisis is no longer relevant. Egypt is already in Growth, while the Green shoots have appeared in France and Germany. Ireland has no idea when it will return to growth. Ahernomics obliterated Irish competitiveness, created an unmanagable public defecit, and has given rise to the need for an NAMA, which either way will cost the Irish taxpayer for decades. The IMF,a nd OECD reports have highlighted that Bertie and Cowen's mismanagement is what cause our crisis.

He was hauled before the tribunal for a reason. However, that is irrelevant, as his poor economic management will be a far greater stain on his legacy

The great spoofer ruined this country, we will paying for this mess for 10 years:mad::mad:

errlloyd

Oh maybe you wish we had the political structure of Egypt then. Lebanon experienced growth right the way through, it helps when your nation is a steaming pile of **** to begin with.

As for France and Germany, they are two examples of success you have pulled out of a burning vat of failure.

Was Tony Blair **** for England? Pinning the blame for all of this on Bertie is very narrow minded, anyway even if you dislike the guy. At least go along to heckle and laugh as he stammers.

If you wanna be destructive about it, use some sort of pipe-bomb and then we can get rid of Mary Lou as well, that would be an ok compromise in my books.

Breezer

errlloyd wrote: »

Was Tony Blair **** for England? Pinning the blame for all of this on Bertie is very narrow minded, anyway even if you dislike the guy. At least go along to heckle and laugh as he stammers.

OK, I'll elaborate.

McCreevy dished out unsustainable budgets in order to win votes.

Cowen did likewise.

Harney talked about small government and created the biggest public service monolith this country has ever seen.

Dempsey wasted money on E voting.

McCreevy (again) of the "light touch" allowed bankers to do precisely what they liked (shockingly, bankers apparently liked making lots of money).

Haughey, Lawlor, Burke, the Flynn family and Bertie accepted brown envelopes left, right and centre, to hell with the public good.

No one from the government heeded the multiple warnings from Richard Bruton and many economists that we were heading for disaster. Bertie advised them to commit suicide.

The Financial Regulator did not do his job.

FÁS threw money around like it was going out of fashion.

Etc, etc, etc.

The central point here: Bertie Ahern presided over ALL of this. Bertie Ahern's job was to make sure those he appointed to positions of power acted in the public interest. Bertie Ahern did not do his job. Additionally, he spent months doing a lap of honour after the Tribunal dishonoured him, to the detriment of the first Yes campaign (although what they're at now is anyone's guess). So yes, I do blame Bertie. I also blame Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats (sorry Het-Field), and I blame the people who voted for them time and again, and I will certainly blame people who will still vote for them despite all this. :mad:

Rant over. I feel better now. Yes to Lisbon :pac:

Pride Fighter

Breezer wrote: »

OK, I'll elaborate.

McCreevy dished out unsustainable budgets in order to win votes.

Cowen did likewise.

Harney talked about small government and created the biggest public service monolith this country has ever seen.

Dempsey wasted money on E voting.

McCreevy (again) of the "light touch" allowed bankers to do precisely what they liked (shockingly, bankers apparently liked making lots of money).

Haughey, Lawlor, Burke, the Flynn family and Bertie accepted brown envelopes left, right and centre, to hell with the public good.

No one from the government heeded the multiple warnings from Richard Bruton and many economists that we were heading for disaster. Bertie advised them to commit suicide.

The Financial Regulator did not do his job.

FÁS threw money around like it was going out of fashion.

Etc, etc, etc.

The central point here: Bertie Ahern presided over ALL of this. Bertie Ahern's job was to make sure those he appointed to positions of power acted in the public interest. Bertie Ahern did not do his job. So yes, I do blame Bertie. I also blame Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats (sorry Het-Field), and I blame the people who voted for them time and again, and I will certainly blame people who will still vote for them despite all this. :mad:

Rant over. I feel better now. Yes to Lisbon :pac:

Agree with all except the last 3 words:)

Breezer

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Agree with all except the last 3 words:)

As yes, but sure you have your head screwed on. You occasionally unscrew it and go badmouthing Fine Gael, but most of the time it's screwed on pretty tight

Het-Field

errlloyd wrote: »

Oh maybe you wish we had the political structure of Egypt then. Lebanon experienced growth right the way through, it helps when your nation is a steaming pile of **** to begin with.

As for France and Germany, they are two examples of success you have pulled out of a burning vat of failure.

Was Tony Blair **** for England? Pinning the blame for all of this on Bertie is very narrow minded, anyway even if you dislike the guy. At least go along to heckle and laugh as he stammers.

If you wanna be destructive about it, use some sort of pipe-bomb and then we can get rid of Mary Lou as well, that would be an ok compromise in my books.

So you are encouraging me to make an ad hominem attack on Bertie ? That is the most childish suggestion I have ever come across.

Egypt is not the only country. Australia (thanks to Mr Howard's fiscally conservative policies), and Canada have all been saved from financial disaster. Equally, we are far behind the countries which are below France and Germany. Ireland shall bottom out at a far lower level then most other European Countries. Hence, our recovery will take far longer, will be far more painful, and prove a greater incumbance on the taxpayer.

This is a recovery which has been necessitated by consistent increases of 10% in spending per annum. This was spending facilitated by borrowing, and unsustainable windfall taxes on property. The factors of productivity (so heavily relied on from 1997-2003) were thrown out the window. Job creation through schemes, privitisation, and tax breaks for sustainable companies were ignored. That was done by Bertie and Biffo. This was to ensure Bertie could call himself a socialist, and claim he was looking after the "staff". Remember his disgraceful decision to sack Willie Walsh out of Aer Lingus. Last year while Bertie was fudging responsibility for past indiscretions, and the collapse of Ireland's financial stability, Mr Walsh took unequivocable responsibility for BA grinding to a hault in July 2008.

Equally, Bertie held up Ireland's competitive ability by implementing a ridiculously high minimum wage, failing to do anything about the cost of electricity, and rental prices. This eroded Ireland as a competitive hub, and within months, Ireland had slipped from 2nd to 15th. This is one of the key reasons for mass relocation, and one of the reasons for company decision to exit Ireland, and move to a more comptetitive place.

The legislation governing banking regulation, was ratified by a FF led government. The regulator was ordered to defer to the Minister For Finance. Bertie didnt see that come to pass. As such, our banks were lending out more money, than they could possibly bring in. Reckless lending should have been rooted out, however, it suited the Bertie "economic model" to allow it continue, as "boutique banks" such as Anglo Irish lent ridiculous sums of money to random people. The bubble was based on a loose banking system, and bertie allowed that to flourish.

Pride Fighter, no need to be sorry ! In hindsight, there are a few things which I get annoyed at vis-a-vis the PDs. First, McDowell should ahve pulled the plug on Bertie in 2006. It would have been the end of his premiership, and the books could have been audited at a far earlier stage. Im equally annoyed that thePDs didnt call a halt to the wanton spending which the 2002-2007 government engaged in. However, I dont believe that the fiscally liberal politics used by FF, to proffer themselves as socialists, was supported in anyway by the PDs. As they had little or no ability to force FF's hands, the PDs played a redundant role ifrom 2002. FF could carry on without them, and in 2004, the PDs (and PD influence in McCreevy (whose lax attitude to fiscal rectitude flowed directly from Mr Ahern) and Brennan) was further eroded, as all the ministerial portfolios of the party became social ones. Our biggest mistake was not calling a halt to the unsustainable increases in spending. Hence, I dont try to absolve my party of blame.

However, the primary cause was the populist politics of a man whose hubris knows no bounds.

WeeBushy

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Of course the fact that I now feel the EU in hosting a second referendum in essence pulled down their trousers and unloaded a big one on my vote, and on Irish democracy in general, means I now feel obligated on moral grounds to vote No. As I said before though I reckon it will pass this time and I feel after this I'll be done with voting for good. I feel like my democratic rights were robbed from me by Mr Barroso and co last year and I just want the whole thing over with. I'm sure many Yes voters couldn't give a toss but if the same thing happened to them I wonder how they would feel.

How you came to this idea is baffling. It is in no way undemocratic to run a second referendum.

1) Our democratically created constitution states that the government can run a second referendum, hell they can run as many as they see fit. And they are completely within their democratic right to do so.

2) They did listen to our NO vote least time. Hence the legal guarantees protecting us against many of the reasons we voted NO the first time. It also gives the cretins who voted no "cuz I didn't understand it" the chance to learn about the treaty and take part in democracy properly.

3) I'd love to know what you think of the referenda on divorce in Ireland. Do you think divorce should be forever illegal in Ireland because we voted against its introduction the first time? Did the government pull down their pants and unload a big one, as you so elegantly put it, on our vote when they ran a second referendum? I think not.

4) Let me put forward an analogy to the current situation:
You are eating in a restaurant and the waiter offers you desert, chocolate cake. Now you don't like cream so you ask the waiter if there is cream in the cake. He says yes so you decline the desert. The waiter knows how delicious this cake is so asks the chef if it would be possible for him to make the cake for you without cream, and the chef obliges. The waiter returns and asks you again would you like chocolate cake, but this time without cream. Now wouldn't it be unreasonable for you to start ranting and raving at the waiter "how dare you offer me cake again when I said no! How dare you think that you can ask me again, even though you have removed the part I don't like. No means no!"

If the people of Ireland want a NO vote this time around, then that is what we will get. And at no time will the government have stuck up two fingers to democracy. To say otherwise is just illogical.

I for one, however, hope this wont be the case.

Jev/N

WeeBushy wrote: »

How you came to this idea is baffling. It is in no way undemocratic to run a second referendum.

1) Our democratically created constitution states that the government can run a second referendum, hell they can run as many as they see fit. And they are completely within their democratic right to do so.

Exactly. It's not the first time they've re-run a referendum!

Pride Fighter

Jev/N wrote: »

Exactly. It's not the first time they've re-run a referendum!

True, but divorce referenda were spaced out over several years, not several months.

WeeBushy

Pride Fighter wrote: »

True, but divorce referenda were spaced out over several years, not several months.

Typical answer.

It was spaced over a period of ten years, however this was because circumstances (general public opinion) changed. It had absolutely nothing at all to do with time. Circumstances have changed with regards to the Lisbon treaty (the reasons we voted no the first time were addressed with legal guarantees, and it was found out that a large proportion of people voted no because they were ignorant on what they were voting, but I'm sure you already know the reasons) so a second referendum is needed.

Pride Fighter

WeeBushy wrote: »

Typical answer.

It was spaced over a period of ten years, however this was because circumstances (general public opinion) changed. It had absolutely nothing at all to do with time. Circumstances have changed with regards to the Lisbon treaty (the reasons we voted no the first time were addressed with legal guarantees, and it was found out that a large proportion of people voted no because they were ignorant on what they were voting, but I'm sure you already know the reasons) so a second referendum is needed.

Nonsense, not one word of the treaty has been changed. These 'guarantees' are not legally binding.

Stabshauptmann

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Nonsense, not one word of the treaty has been changed. These 'guarantees' are not legally binding.

Its very simple. People were asked why they voted no. They listed x y and z as their concerns. These concerns have been addressed. So it seems perfectly fair to vote again.

Now people can vote no if they want. Maybe they dont feel their concerns have been addressed properly, or they dont trust the guarentees or maybe they have other concerns.

That being said all this tripe and BS about why we shouldnt vote again just makes me think that there is an agenda being pushed that has nothing to do with Lisbon.

Pride Fighter

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

Its very simple. People were asked why they voted no. They listed x y and z as their concerns. These concerns have been addressed. So it seems perfectly fair to vote again.

Now people can vote no if they want. Maybe they dont feel their concerns have been addressed properly, or they dont trust the guarentees or maybe they have other concerns.

That being said all this tripe and BS about why we shouldnt vote again just makes me think that there is an agenda being pushed that has nothing to do with Lisbon.

The government believed wrongly that Declan Ganley secured the last no vote. They listened to that right wing crank harp on about commissioners and other nonsense. Libertas got less than 3% of the vote at the last elections. Libertas are not representative of the no side. The government did nothing for the legitimate concerns of independent people like myself and left wing thinkers like Joe Higgins. My concerns regarding workers rights, neutrality, increased militarisation and increased privatisation have not been adressed. This is why it will fail again, 5-1 for a no vote in the bookies, think I'll win some cash:D

WeeBushy

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Nonsense, not one word of the treaty has been changed. These 'guarantees' are not legally binding.

Of course it hasn't been changed, most of the reasons we voted no in the first place had nothing to do with the treaty. The guarantees merely reiterate this; that they are not, were not, and never will be a problem.

Please stop spreading lies - the guarantees are completely and utterly binding. They are international treaties in their own right. They will come into play when/if Lisbon is ratified giving them full legal status.

The Referendum Commission have repeatedly stated this.

Pride Fighter wrote: »

My concerns regarding workers rights, neutrality, increased militarisation and increased privatisation have not been adressed.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0903/breaking40.htm

We have seen that since the vote on the treaty last year, the European Council has set out the effects of the Lisbon Treaty on Irish laws and policies on the issues of abortion, taxation and defence. These statements from the council have been referred to as assurances or guarantees and say essentially that nothing in the Lisbon Treaty will affect Ireland's laws on these issues ... The Referendum Commission said the same thing last year and is happy to do so again ... He also moved to clarify suggestions the treaty would slash the minimum wage. As far as the claim that Lisbon has anything to do with the minimum wage is concerned, there is a simple answer to that. It hasn’t.

Pride Fighter

WeeBushy wrote: »

Of course it hasn't been changed, most of the reasons we voted no in the first place had nothing to do with the treaty. The guarantees merely reiterate this; that they are not, were not, and never will be a problem.

Please stop spreading lies - the guarantees are completely and utterly binding. They are international treaties in their own right. They will come into play when/if Lisbon is ratified giving them full legal status.

The Referendum Commission have repeatedly stated this.

The referendum commission is in the pocket of the government and are lying. Wont surprise me if McKenna sues the extremely yes biased commission.

WeeBushy

Pride Fighter wrote: »

The referendum commission is in the pocket of the government and are lying. Wont surprise me if McKenna sues the extremely yes biased commission.

Bring that baseless assertion over to Conspiracy Theories... Stop lowering this discussion to the levels of COIR, bandying about allegations and untruths. Stick to facts.

Pride Fighter

WeeBushy wrote: »

Bring that baseless assertion over to Conspiracy Theories... Stop lowering this discussion to the levels of COIR, bandying about allegations and untruths. Stick to facts.

I am sticking to facts, maybe you should. When I have debated the texts in earlier posts, I stuck to the treaty. Not bandying about soundbites and scare tactics. Past few posts I have fought soundbites with soundbites though, I'll admit that, but when people are lying about legal guarantees one cannot but help it.

WeeBushy

Pride Fighter wrote: »

I am sticking to facts, maybe you should. When I have debated the texts in earlier posts, I stuck to the treaty. Not bandying about soundbites and scare tactics. Past few posts I have fought soundbites with soundbites though, I'll admit that, but when people are lying about legal guarantees one cannot but help it.

Sticking to your facts then, I would love if you could show credible evidence backing up your assertion that the guarantees are not legally binding. And while you're at it that the commission is in the back pocket of FF.

Seeing as mine was apparently a "sound bite" (however i fail to see how the view of our independent referendum commission is a sound bite) then here:

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/jun/lisbon-ireland.pdf

here:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0617/eulisbon.html

and here:

http://www.lisbontreaty.ie/guarantees/

Jev/N

Pride Fighter wrote: »

My concerns regarding workers rights, neutrality, increased militarisation and increased privatisation have not been adressed.

Would you mind expanding on these concerns a bit please?

I've skimmed through the treaty over the last few days but it's pretty tough to read a 272 page document in depth!

Pride Fighter

Jev/N wrote: »

Would you mind expanding on these concerns a bit please?

I've skimmed through the treaty over the last few days but it's pretty tough to read a 272 page document in depth!

The charter of fundamental rights in the treaty is very good. In the explanation of the charter in the Lisbon treaty it states that the charter is superseded by the European Court of Justice. The ECJ has recently favoured big businesses in its caseload in the Viking, Laval and Luxembourg cases. These cases undermine workers rights and make the charter of fundamental rights irrelevant as a result.

Regarding neutrality and military spending I was recently talking to a friend of mine in the Irish army. He basically told me Ireland was a de facto member of NATO, as we train with various NATO battlegroups. Irrelevant regarding Lisbon but it worries me nonetheless. On France 24 a few months ago I saw a news report, it was about the French army reducing military spending significantly. The report was not worried as Lisbon has provisions regarding other nations picking up their slack by increased spending in the Lisbon treaty. I forget the exact articles but they are there.

Jev/N

Pride Fighter wrote: »

The charter of fundamental rights in the treaty is very good. In the explanation of the charter in the Lisbon treaty it states that the charter is superseded by the European Court of Justice. The ECJ has recently favoured big businesses in its caseload in the Viking, Laval and Luxembourg cases. These cases undermine workers rights and make the charter of fundamental rights irrelevant as a result.

Regarding neutrality and military spending I was recently talking to a friend of mine in the Irish army. He basically told me Ireland was a de facto member of NATO, as we train with various NATO battlegroups. Irrelevant regarding Lisbon but it worries me nonetheless. On France 24 a few months ago I saw a news report, it was about the French army reducing military spending significantly. The report was not worried as Lisbon has provisions regarding other nations picking up their slack by increased spending in the Lisbon treaty. I forget the exact articles but they are there.

From my knowledge of EU law, albeit 3 years ago when I studied it, ECJ decisions are only moderately relevant when cases are appealed or brought directly to the ECJ. In addition, the ECJ has made a number of very fair and liberal decisions in relation to areas such family law and the rights of unmarried parents.

It is my understanding that workers right will not have changed in our country as our laws and precedents still stand as they have always done.

If we are essentially a de facto member of NATO and as I mentioned previously in another post, rarely sitting on the fence in terms of neutrality, why should we vote no to Lisbon as a result?

There are certainly some reasons to vote no but there are so many more reasons to vote yes

Anyway I just said I'd make a few points on this thread. I have neither the time, nor the energy, to be getting involved in a full-scale discussion!

Pride Fighter

Jev/N wrote: »

From my knowledge of EU law, albeit 3 years ago when I studied it, ECJ decisions are only moderately relevant when cases are appealed or brought directly to the ECJ. In addition, the ECJ has made a number of very fair and liberal decisions in relation to areas such family law and the rights of unmarried parents.

It is my understanding that workers right will not have changed in our country as our laws and precedents still stand as they have always done.

If we are essentially a de facto member of NATO and as I mentioned previously in another post, rarely sitting on the fence in terms of neutrality, why should we vote no to Lisbon as a result?

There are certainly some reasons to vote no but there are so many more reasons to vote yes

Anyway I just said I'd make a few points on this thread. I have neither the time, nor the energy, to be getting involved in a full-scale discussion!

Sure I wont preach, continue reading the literature and make your own mind up. The ECJ has been great for Ireland in the past as you said, but regarding workers rights, it has been in favour of the business owners and not the generators of wealth, the workers. Regarding neutrality Lisbon institutionalises military co-operation for the first time, even though we are de facto NATO members, we are not.

Anyway, good luck, vote October 2. Yes or No, make your own mind up and dont listen to the lies on both sides.

FlashGirl

The Lisbon Treaty directly tackles cross border crime (Article 83 TFEU), sex and drug trafficking (Article 83.1 TFEU) and climate change (Article 3.3 TEU, Article 21.2.d and TEU, Article 191.1 TFEU) which is why I'm voting yes.

Article 194.1.c TFEU allows for money to be invested in renewable energy which gives Ireland the opportuity to create thousands of 'green collar' jobs -from science graduates to people who work in the canteen!

Het-Field

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0914/1224254475259.html

As though Coir have never been offensive in their lives !

RandomName2

errlloyd wrote: »

Yeah defo, Bertie alone caused the world economic crisis.

You know when it was all beginning to go wrong, when we needed our leaders most. Thats when we pinned him into a tribunal and started ripping his life apart. Say what you want, I am going.

Yes, Fianna Fail may have been instrumental in generating a large property bubble, huge public expenditure reliant upon a transitory engrossed surplus and made Ireland subject to recurring costs that would hit home when the bubble collapsed... but they came up with a perfect solution.

Lisbon.

Yes, by approving Lisbon Ireland will get out of recession faster than you can say 'How on earth does changing the legislative competancy of the EU have anything to do with economics?'

But if you vote no (again) we will be thrown to the hungry wolves waiting on the borders of Europe. Or maybe not. Perhaps Sarcozy will have a hissy fit and call the Irish idiots. (what, like the French electorate :rolleyes:?). For all I care .

El Siglo

I'm going to listen to Jim Corr from now on, Ireland's answer to Noam Chomsky!

WeeBushy

Pride Fighter wrote: »

I am sticking to facts, maybe you should. When I have debated the texts in earlier posts, I stuck to the treaty. Not bandying about soundbites and scare tactics. Past few posts I have fought soundbites with soundbites though, I'll admit that, but when people are lying about legal guarantees one cannot but help it.

Pride Fighter,

It has been four days now since you put forward allegations and assertions without any evidence to back up your point of view. You called me out on this so I produced evidence of what I said. You have posted on this very thread since then but have failed completely to provide any evidence of your scaremongering nonsense.

I take it this is because:

a) you don't have any evidence so are just trying to ignore this inconvenience
or
b) you are knowingly trying to dupe people into your way of NO thinking for some perverse reason.

Back up what you have said over several posts as they are disgracefully misleading and disingenuous.

Pride Fighter

WeeBushy wrote: »

Pride Fighter,

It has been four days now since you put forward allegations and assertions without any evidence to back up your point of view. You called me out on this so I produced evidence of what I said. You have posted on this very thread since then but have failed completely to provide any evidence of your scaremongering nonsense.

I take it this is because:

a) you don't have any evidence so are just trying to ignore this inconvenience
or
b) you are knowingly trying to dupe people into your way of NO thinking for some perverse reason.

Back up what you have said over several posts as they are disgracefully misleading and disingenuous.

Yes I have. I mentioned the charter of fundamental rights and how that is superseded by the ECJ, that is in the treaty.

WeeBushy

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Yes I have. I mentioned the charter of fundamental rights and how that is superseded by the ECJ, that is in the treaty.

And i showed you, with references, that the guarantees protect us from this.

You have yet to back up your slander in any way that the Referendum Commission are biased towards FF/the YES side. Are you going to keep avoiding this?