Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

UCD Students and The Lisbon Treaty

Options
1235»

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Stabshauptmann
    Registered Users Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #123
    Pride Fighter
    Registered Users Posts: 5,729 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #124
    WeeBushy
    Registered Users Posts: 3,572 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #125
    Pride Fighter
    Registered Users Posts: 5,729 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #126
    WeeBushy
    Registered Users Posts: 3,572 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Pride Fighter
    Registered Users Posts: 5,729 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #128
    WeeBushy
    Registered Users Posts: 3,572 ✭✭✭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/


  • Options
    #129
    Jev/N
    Registered Users Posts: 3,456 ✭✭✭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!


  • Options
    #130
    Pride Fighter
    Registered Users Posts: 5,729 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #131
    Jev/N
    Registered Users Posts: 3,456 ✭✭✭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!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Pride Fighter
    Registered Users Posts: 5,729 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #133
    FlashGirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6 ✭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!


  • Options
    #134
    Het-Field
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


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

    As though Coir have never been offensive in their lives !


  • Options
    #135
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭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 :D.


  • Options
    #136
    El Siglo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,803 ✭✭✭El Siglo


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


  • Options
    #137
    WeeBushy
    Registered Users Posts: 3,572 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #138
    Pride Fighter
    Registered Users Posts: 5,729 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #139
    WeeBushy
    Registered Users Posts: 3,572 ✭✭✭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?


Advertisement