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
LISBON - What way will Clare vote this time?
Comments
-
... When making my own decision I had very little interest in what the yes side were saying because, as bladespin pointed out, the yes campaign was a shambles run by idiots. If I wanted to find out if there was anything wrong with the treaty I needed to look at what its opponents were saying and so I did and I found that everything they were saying was one of the following:
- A lie
- An exaggeration
- Taken from something that was already in force and misinterpreted (because most of Lisbon is just Nice, Amsterdam and Rome put together)
- A red herring
And then I learned the voting pattern of the main proponents of the no side (table shamelessly stolen from Scofflaw
)
Group | Accession | SEA | Maastricht | Amsterdam | Nice | Lisbon
| | | | | |
Sinn Fein | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
Socialist Party | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
Workers' Party | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
Socialist Workers' Party | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
P McKenna | - | - | NO | NO | NO | NO
Anthony Coughlan/National Platform | - | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
COIR/YD/SPUC | - | - | NO | NO | NO | NO
PANA | - | - | - | NO | NO | NO
And I realised the entire no campaign was a pack of naysayers trying to trick people into rejecting the treaty by telling lies about it because they know that the rest of the country doesn't hate Europe like they do
And Europe has every right to ask us to reconsider when our vote was manipulated by liars with ulterior motives
I think this says it all. (The Dub will run off and hide now)
And Run_to_da_hills I didn't know you were from Clare? Although I like your new tactic, you can't get away with posting all the lies in the politics forum so you're going into the regional forums and doing it instead.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
BLITZ_Molloy wrote: »Having a Google around to see what the story is. It's a bit confusing. Seems they used to have 780 in 2007 back when the limit was 736 so it isn't really an indication that they're implementing new Lisbon stuff, they've just historically been over capacity.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=IM-PRESS&reference=20070906STO10163&language=EN
I guess I stand corrected. The only source of figures I can find is the EU website which says 736 members. I definitely heard they've got more than that at the moment on a podcast though.
Under the terms of Nice the number of MEP had to be cut from 786 to 736 for for the European Parliament election in June. A number of countries thought that this number was too low so that 736 was increased to 751 under the terms agreed in the Lisbon treaty.
At the time the negotiations were concluded it had been expected that Lisbon would have been in force when the last elections were held and so the 736 number would never have had to come into force, had that indeed been the case the number of elected MEPs would have been 751.
In the event that Lisbon is ratified and enters into force during the current term then the current number will be increased by 15 to 751 as was originally planned. If this happens Germany loses 3 seats (as the maximum number allowed for any country is 96 under Lisbon), 12 other countries gain a total of 18 seats (the extra 15 + the extra 3 lost German seats). Unfortunately Ireland is not of the countries due to collect one of the extra seat though
. 0 -
-
-
-
Threats make it all better, I'm sure.
Oh yeah, and threats like if we reject Lisbon we are going to get isolated from Europe, or if we vote no we will never recover or get more jobs... but I suppose short term greed will prevail and the treaty will be passed out of fear and hope.... which was not the case this time last year when we rejected it not in the dire straight we found ourselves in.I have no real interest in discussing this with you as you dismiss anyone who disagrees with you.
If you dont have any real interest in discussing then stop posting on this thread. Of course, you dont have any yes arguments to say... you havnt tried me yet... the door is alway open, you just have a stone in your throat and cant come up with anything of substance in retaliation to my "false" claims and socialist ideas... which is the edge I am getting atStill...You are making some claims so it's up to you to show evidence that your claims are true. So let's take your claim that we won't need referenda any more after Lisbon, show us all were in the treaty that happens? You're so sure you're right so that should be pretty simple?
Please... :rolleyes:
Under Article 9 of the Lisbon Treaty the European Council changes from an inter-governmental body to a European Union institution.
Rather than act in the interests of the nation states who elect them, this change would mean that the Council would “aim to promote its [the Union’s] values, advance its objectives, its interests”. These values, objectives and interests are not determined by any election but by existing and future EU law.
Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU powers to amend its own treaties, without recourse to an inter-governmental conference, a new treaty or the guarantee of a referendum.
Until now, revisions of EU treaties required these three stages, ensuring that national governments and, in the case of Ireland, national populations are involved in the decision-making process. Article 48 dispenses with this and allows the European Council to make amendments by unanimity. This means that, in the future, significant changes could be made to the structure, procedures or competencies of the EU without any guarantee of a referendum.
“Lisbon equals more military spending: Article 25 and 28 contain four separate obligations on military spending. Article 28(c)(3) states ‘Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy.’ The same article also states ‘member states shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities’.Or how about we look at the European Defence Agency, what vast sum of money are they spending on all these guns etc? Show us the numbers?
Articles 10 to 28 of the Lisbon Treaty advance EU control over foreign, security and defence policy, increasing the militarisation of the EU and further eroding Irish neutrality.
Article 28c mandates: “Member states shall undertake to improve their military capabilities.” Taken with the “start-up fund” and “specific procedures for guaranteeing rapid access to appropriations... for urgent financing of [unspecified] initiatives in the framework of the common foreign and security policy” (detailed in Article 28d), member states will be obliged to increase their financial contributions to the military capabilities of the EU.I won't held my breath since us mere mortals all know less than you.
Did I mention the response to climate change in the trety?
I wont go there for now, I think Ive done enough to your sinking comeback for the day0 -
drunken_munky52 wrote: »Oh yeah, and threats like if we reject Lisbon we are going to get isolated from Europe, or if we vote no we will never recover or get more jobs... but I suppose short term greed will prevail and the treaty will be passed out of fear and hope.... which was not the case this time last year when we rejected it not in the dire straight we found ourselves in.
If you dont have any real interest in discussing then stop posting on this thread. Of course, you dont have any yes arguments to say... you havnt tried me yet... the door is alway open, you just have a stone in your throat and cant come up with anything of substance in retaliation to my "false" claims and socialist ideas... which is the edge I am getting at
Please... :rolleyes:
Under Article 9 of the Lisbon Treaty the European Council changes from an inter-governmental body to a European Union institution.
Rather than act in the interests of the nation states who elect them, this change would mean that the Council would “aim to promote its [the Union’s] values, advance its objectives, its interests”. These values, objectives and interests are not determined by any election but by existing and future EU law.
Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU powers to amend its own treaties, without recourse to an inter-governmental conference, a new treaty or the guarantee of a referendum.
Until now, revisions of EU treaties required these three stages, ensuring that national governments and, in the case of Ireland, national populations are involved in the decision-making process. Article 48 dispenses with this and allows the European Council to make amendments by unanimity. This means that, in the future, significant changes could be made to the structure, procedures or competencies of the EU without any guarantee of a referendum.
“Lisbon equals more military spending: Article 25 and 28 contain four separate obligations on military spending. Article 28(c)(3) states ‘Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy.’ The same article also states ‘member states shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities’.
Articles 10 to 28 of the Lisbon Treaty advance EU control over foreign, security and defence policy, increasing the militarisation of the EU and further eroding Irish neutrality.
Article 28c mandates: “Member states shall undertake to improve their military capabilities.” Taken with the “start-up fund” and “specific procedures for guaranteeing rapid access to appropriations... for urgent financing of [unspecified] initiatives in the framework of the common foreign and security policy” (detailed in Article 28d), member states will be obliged to increase their financial contributions to the military capabilities of the EU.
Did I mention the response to climate change in the trety?
I wont go there for now, I think Ive done enough to your sinking comeback for the day
Have you had a chance to look up New World Order and Bilderberg yet? I'm hoping that before you do you get a good night's sleep in and a long walk and a good meal in you because there really will be no stopping you after that...0 -
Advertisement
-
-
drunken_munky52 wrote: »Under Article 9 of the Lisbon Treaty the European Council changes from an inter-governmental body to a European Union institution.
Rather than act in the interests of the nation states who elect them, this change would mean that the Council would “aim to promote its [the Union’s] values, advance its objectives, its interests”. These values, objectives and interests are not determined by any election but by existing and future EU law.
But the European Council is when the leaders of the EU states meet, Cowan is our case. The Council of Europe is when the ministers of each EU state meet.
I searched the Lisbon treaty and the only place the text you posted exists in in Article 13 which states.
"1. The Union shall have an institutional framework which shall aim to promote its values, advance its objectives, serve its interests, those of its citizens and those of the Member States, and ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions.
The Union's institutions shall be:
- the European Parliament,
- the European Council,
- the Council,
- the European Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission"),
- the Court of Justice of the European Union,
- the European Central Bank,
- the Court of Auditors.
3. The provisions relating to the European Central Bank and the Court of Auditors and detailed provisions on the other institutions are set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union."
Now this doesn't say what you're claiming at all.drunken_munky52 wrote: »Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU powers to amend its own treaties, without recourse to an inter-governmental conference, a new treaty or the guarantee of a referendum.
Until now, revisions of EU treaties required these three stages, ensuring that national governments and, in the case of Ireland, national populations are involved in the decision-making process. Article 48 dispenses with this and allows the European Council to make amendments by unanimity. This means that, in the future, significant changes could be made to the structure, procedures or competencies of the EU without any guarantee of a referendum.
I'll post this section from Article 48 for you.
"4. A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties.
The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."
It's very clear since our constitutional requirements are we need to have a referendum then we will still have to have a referendum - nothing changes. Well it appears you were 'mistaken' again.drunken_munky52 wrote: »“Lisbon equals more military spending: Article 25 and 28 contain four separate obligations on military spending. Article 28(c)(3) states ‘Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy.’ The same article also states ‘member states shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities’.
Articles 10 to 28 of the Lisbon Treaty advance EU control over foreign, security and defence policy, increasing the militarisation of the EU and further eroding Irish neutrality.
Article 28c mandates: “Member states shall undertake to improve their military capabilities.” Taken with the “start-up fund” and “specific procedures for guaranteeing rapid access to appropriations... for urgent financing of [unspecified] initiatives in the framework of the common foreign and security policy” (detailed in Article 28d), member states will be obliged to increase their financial contributions to the military capabilities of the EU.
I can't even find some of these articles you mention and since you've mentioned over 21 different ones above I'm not going through them all. Some of these are articles from older treaties which we've already agreed to.
Article 25
"The Union shall conduct the common foreign and security policy by:
(a) defining the general guidelines;
(b) adopting decisions defining:
(i) actions to be undertaken by the Union;
(ii) positions to be taken by the Union;
(iii) arrangements for the implementation of the decisions referred to in points (i) and (ii);
and by
(c) strengthening systematic cooperation between Member States in the conduct of policy."
No specific spending there, is there?
Article 28 doesn't say what you claim but article 42 does.
"3. Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy, to contribute to the objectives defined by the Council. Those Member States which together establish multinational forces may also make them available to the common security and defence policy.
Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities. The Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments (hereinafter referred to as "the European Defence Agency") shall identify operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities."
I looked up the budget of the European Defence Agency for 2009, it's a total of €30 million between 27 countries. I don't know if you're aware of this but €30 million would hardly buy one plane or maybe a few tanks, it's hardly more than an admin budget. The US spends hundreds of billions on weapons.
Article 42
"7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States."
So we learn two things here, we have an obligation to help if one of the other EU countries is attacked but we can do so any way we like, we can send bandages or cabbages if we want. We are not under any obligation to help militarily. And secondly we learn that since we have a policy of neutrality it's not affected by this in any way.
You should stop reading leaflets by bull**** artists and go check for yourself.
Consolidated Lisbon Treaty.drunken_munky52 wrote: »Did I mention the response to climate change in the trety?
Let me guess you don't think climate change is happening?drunken_munky52 wrote: »I wont go there for now, I think Ive done enough to your sinking comeback for the day
Well you certainly wasted a lot of my time finding out that you were just parroting some No campaign lies instead of looking for yourself. Ah well.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Back on topic.
I was chatting to a heap of farmers on Tuesday and handing out the facts about Lisbon.
Before I even spoke to them most of them have decided on voting NO because they fear that the EU will rape them in the same way as they have desicrated the fishermen in this country. The smaller farmers feared the worst.
0
Advertisement