The return of Declan Ganley

Scofflaw

patrickthomas wrote: »

But 10 weeks is a long time in politics Scofflaw, or are you new to politics?
The next few weeks will be very interesting to say the least. Ganley has no connection to COIR whatsoever, but keep up the allegations, they are funny.:pac:

Hence the COIR endorsement in the last week of the euro elections, and the COIR people on the ground working for Libertas both during the referendum campaign and the euros.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FunnyStuff

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Denmark were given guarantees as well in their second referendum on the Maastricht Treaty


please do answer the following:

* were the exceptions and guarantees broken by other EU members in respect to Denmark

* does that not set and identical precedent

We're not voting on denmark, i never mentioned any guarantess they got, and it has no relevance to the lisbon treaty. What we are voting on is what is contained in the treaty, and in that there are no guarantee's

ei.sdraob

FunnyStuff wrote: »

We're not voting on denmark, i never mentioned any guarantess they got, and it has no relevance to the lisbon treaty. What we are voting on is what is contained in the treaty, and in that there are no guarantee's

sigh

read the linked posts

Denmark was in the exact same identical position as Ireland is now in respect to a major EU Treaty

and their guarantees were upheld and yes

you are voting on the Treaty + Guarantees

this time around

PopeBuckfastXVI

FunnyStuff wrote: »

Actually no we're not, same treaty. Guarantees only become law where written into protocol, which wont be for another few years. So as it stands, it is the same package.

Which of the guarantees concerns you? Do you think ratifying Lisbon will affect our neutrality, lead to conscription, lead to abortion, lead to EU control of tax rates?

Spiritoftheseventies

No mention of Ganley on Six One news yesterday. Either its a non story or RTE Television are being told not to cover him. He was on Kenny, Last Word yesterday and yet no mention of him on the campaign trail. Strange.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

No mention of Ganley on Six One news yesterday. Either its a non story or RTE Television are being told not to cover him. He was on Kenny, Last Word yesterday and yet no mention of him on the campaign trail. Strange.

I wasn't on Six One news yesterday either. Strange.

FunnyStuff

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Denmark was in the exact same identical position as Ireland is now in respect to a major EU Treaty

As i said, Denmark... no relevance

i havent looked at the question i will be asked in the booth yet, i'll have a look when i get home, but if you know what it is tell me, and i does it say anything about the guarantees?

ei.sdraob

FunnyStuff wrote: »

As i said, Denmark... no relevance

i havent looked at the question i will be asked in the booth yet, i'll have a look when i get home, but if you know what it is tell me, and i does it say anything about the guarantees?

jesus christ

how is a country in an exact position and that set a precedent of no relevance

go home and read the guarantees, they are attached to the Treaty and are legal international documents



what you are saying is similar to:

Oh that Insurance Contract attached to the mortgage of my house is not legal


a complete nonsense

Mario007

ei.sdraob wrote: »

jesus christ

how is a country in an exact position and that set a precedent of no relevance

go home and read the guarantees, they are attached to the Treaty and are legal international documents



what you are saying is similar to:

Oh that Insurance Contract attached to the mortgage of my house is not legal


a complete nonsense

i'd just like to add that eu is ruled by precedents so Denmark is in every way relevant

FunnyStuff

ei.sdraob wrote: »

jesus christ

how is a country in an exact position and that set a precedent of no relevance

go home and read the guarantees, they are attached to the Treaty and are legal international documents



what you are saying is similar to:

Oh that Insurance Contract attached to the mortgage of my house is not legal


a complete nonsense

Precedent means nothing, does every person convicted of 1st degree murder serve the same sentence???..... NO

As for the insurance thing!?!?!?!?!? it was a terrible analogy

Have you found the question yet, maybe i'll just wait till i get home.

ei.sdraob

FunnyStuff wrote: »

Precedent means nothing, does every person convicted of 1st degree murder serve the same sentence???..... NO

precedent means everything in the context of EU, where did you come up with murder out of? now thats a terrible analogy!!

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62111513&postcount=310

FunnyStuff wrote: »

As for the insurance thing!?!?!?!?!? it was a terrible analogy

Have you found the question yet, maybe i'll just wait till i get home.

sigh

a mortgage is a legal contract, the most important one most people sign in their lives

an insurance/assurance policy attached to a mortgage is also a legal document that provides guarantees



you are voting on Lisbon Treaty + Guarantees

both are legal documents, and not only that international agreements

/

Sam Vimes

FunnyStuff wrote: »

Actually no we're not, same treaty. Guarantees only become law where written into protocol, which wont be for another few years. So as it stands, it is the same package.

Here is the legal context of the guarantees:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61088258&postcount=4

Note:

5. Regarding the Decision in Annex 1, the Heads of State or Government have declared that:
(i) this Decision gives legal guarantee that certain matters of concern to the Irish people will be unaffected by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;
(ii) its content is fully compatible with the Treaty of Lisbon and will not necessitate any reratification of that Treaty;
(iii) the Decision is legally binding and will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;

Any questions?

FunnyStuff

FunnyStuff wrote: »

Precedent means nothing, does every person convicted of 1st degree murder serve the same sentence???..... NO

You're bad with the analogies today.
Thats like asking is everybodies blood pressure the same in an attempt to say some people are more alive than others..

I've had a look at my voting card which contains the exact text of what you vote yes or no to.

As of now wikipedia has the correct version.
Basically you will be asked to say yes or no to what is exactly in the bill.
If the state votes yes,then both houses of the oireachteas can vote on the bill ,presumably pass it and it becomes law thereby changing our constitution and allowing the government on our behalf to ratify lisbon.

Heres the Wikipedia link :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland_Bill,_2009

FunnyStuff

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Here is the legal context of the guarantees:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61088258&postcount=4

Note:


Any questions?

What is the decision in annex 1?

Sam Vimes

FunnyStuff wrote: »

What is the decision in annex 1?

SECTION A
RIGHT TO LIFE, FAMILY AND EDUCATION
Nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon attributing legal status to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union, or in the provisions of that Treaty in the area of Freedom, Security and Justice
affects in any way the scope and applicability of the protection of the right to life in Article 40.3.1,
40.3.2 and 40.3.3, the protection of the family in Article 41 and the protection of the rights in
respect of education in Articles 42 and 44.2.4 and 44.2.5 provided by the Constitution of Ireland.

SECTION B
TAXATION
Nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon makes any change of any kind, for any Member State, to the extent
or operation of the competence of the European Union in relation to taxation.

SECTION C
SECURITY AND DEFENCE
The Union's action on the international scene is guided by the principles of democracy, the rule of
law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for
human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United
Nations Charter and international law.
The Union's common security and defence policy is an integral part of the common foreign and
security policy and provides the Union with an operational capacity to undertake missions outside
the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in
accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter.
It does not prejudice the security and defence policy of each Member State, including Ireland, or the
obligations of any Member State.
The Treaty of Lisbon does not affect or prejudice Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality.
It will be for Member States - including Ireland, acting in a spirit of solidarity and without prejudice
to its traditional policy of military neutrality - to determine the nature of aid or assistance to be
provided to a Member State which is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of armed
aggression on its territory.

Any decision to move to a common defence will require a unanimous decision of the European
Council. It would be a matter for the Member States, including Ireland, to decide, in accordance
with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon and with their respective constitutional requirements,
whether or not to adopt a common defence.
Nothing in this Section affects or prejudices the position or policy of any other Member State on
security and defence.
It is also a matter for each Member State to decide, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty
of Lisbon and any domestic legal requirements, whether to participate in permanent structured
cooperation or the European Defence Agency.
The Treaty of Lisbon does not provide for the creation of a European army or for conscription to
any military formation.
It does not affect the right of Ireland or any other Member State to determine the nature and volume
of its defence and security expenditure and the nature of its defence capabilities.
It will be a matter for Ireland or any other Member State, to decide, in accordance with any
domestic legal requirements, whether or not to participate in any military operation.

SECTION D
FINAL PROVISIONS

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/App/NewsRoom/loadDocument.aspx?id=339&lang=DE&directory=en/ec/&fileName=108622.pdf
This decision shall take effect on the same date as the Treaty of Lisbon.

Mario007

FunnyStuff wrote: »

Precedent means nothing, does every person convicted of 1st degree murder serve the same sentence???..... NO

once again EU law is built on precedent!

daheff

to me a lot of this comes down to whether you trust your government ...and at the moment i dont trust mine. I dont believe what they are telling me...and the so called neutral document from the referendum commission was not neutral. It was pro Lisbon.


Added to the fact that the people voted no the last time and the government have ignored this my vote is for no

prinz

daheff wrote: »

to me a lot of this comes down to whether you trust your government ...and at the moment i dont trust mine. I dont believe what they are telling me...

Given that there are only three parties who at present could conceivably anchor a government, and all three support the Treaty, arguing that you don't trust "the government" is pointless.

Sam Vimes

daheff wrote: »

to me a lot of this comes down to whether you trust your government ...and at the moment i dont trust mine. I dont believe what they are telling me...

Then get your information from one of the other hundreds of sources. You can even get it here

daheff wrote: »

and the so called neutral document from the referendum commission was not neutral. It was pro Lisbon.

No it wasn't. It just didn't include the lies of the no campaign so they started a new lie that it was biased. It's only biased in as far as the truth has a yes bias.

daheff wrote: »

Added to the fact that the people voted no the last time and the government have ignored this my vote is for no

The last time I checked the treaty hadn't been ratified so nothing was ignored. Tell me, in your normal life if 26 of your friends want to do something and you say no, do you expect them to instantly drop the matter or would you be open to talking to them about it and seeing if there's anything they can do to satisfy you that their plan is good?

Stark

The Treaty is available for everyone read so you have no need to trust the government. The opposition parties are also pro-Treaty in case you haven't noticed.

daheff wrote:

Added to the fact that the people voted no the last time and the government have ignored this my vote is for no

Scroll up.

K-9

daheff wrote: »

to me a lot of this comes down to whether you trust your government ...and at the moment i dont trust mine. I dont believe what they are telling me...and the so called neutral document from the referendum commission was not neutral. It was pro Lisbon.


Added to the fact that the people voted no the last time and the government have ignored this my vote is for no

It probably is about as Neutral as you are going to get. Just because it doesn't contain the lies that the No side spew, does not mean it is biased and can't be trusted. The Head of the Commission is the Judge that ruled on Liam Carrolls' case last week.

the_syco

daheff wrote: »

to me a lot of this comes down to whether you trust your government ...and at the moment i dont trust mine.

So you choose to believe SF, Coir, and their lies?

MrJetlag

daheff wrote: »

to me a lot of this comes down to whether you trust your government ...and at the moment i dont trust mine. I dont believe what they are telling me...and the so called neutral document from the referendum commission was not neutral. It was pro Lisbon.


Added to the fact that the people voted no the last time and the government have ignored this my vote is for no

Well said. My thinking also

MrJetlag

MrJetlag wrote: »

Well said. My thinking also

Is it?
You also believe in a great referendum commission conspiracy to lie in favour of the referendum?
Fine Gael and labour must be thick so as they don't agree..

Lol.
You don't ,you're just another poster posting sound bytes with no intention of actually discussing the treaty as you either know nothing about it [and don't want to know] or believe fcuking up the country with another mal informed no vote is worth it just to smack a government you don't like.

How blooming clever :rolleyes:

Stark

Good to know we'll have to live with the consequences of a misinformed vote long after the current government is gone from power as well.

Spiritoftheseventies

Stark wrote: »

The Treaty is available for everyone read so you have no need to trust the government. The opposition parties are also pro-Treaty in case you haven't noticed.



Scroll up.

Well FG have always been pro European so its not much of an argument to say that all opposition parties are for it.

BTW as an indication as to what concessions where made to Germany here this from a link below

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,647744,00.html
"quoted text"

In Germany, a number of lawmakers went to the Constitutional Court to try to stop the treaty. The court, based in the city of Karlsruhe, concluded in June that the Lisbon Treaty was compatible with the German constitution. However, it also ruled that the German parliament's role in the implementation of European law needed to be strengthened.

Most of Germany's political elite greeted June's ruling by the Constitutional Court with a sigh of relief. The only party in parliament to oppose the Lisbon Treaty had been the Left Party. However, the Christian Social Union -- the Bavarian sister party to Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) -- then looked like putting a spanner in the works by demanding that an additional 14 demands be addressed in any future legislation. Accusations of Euroskepticism and populism were soon levied at the CSU. A compromise was hammered out and all but the Left Party voted for the so-called accompanying law on Tuesday. In the end 446 members of parliament voted in favor of the legislation, 46 voted against and there were two abstentions.

Stark

They asked. They received. So did we.

prinz

bayviewclose wrote: »

BTW as an indication as to what concessions where made to Germany here this from a link below....

What concessions were made to Germany? I see an article about German national politics and law, I don't see anything about concessions made to Germany.

marco_polo

bayviewclose wrote: »

Well FG have always been pro European so its not much of an argument to say that all opposition parties are for it.

BTW as an indication as to what concessions where made to Germany here this from a link below

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,647744,00.html
"quoted text"

In Germany, a number of lawmakers went to the Constitutional Court to try to stop the treaty. The court, based in the city of Karlsruhe, concluded in June that the Lisbon Treaty was compatible with the German constitution. However, it also ruled that the German parliament's role in the implementation of European law needed to be strengthened.

Most of Germany's political elite greeted June's ruling by the Constitutional Court with a sigh of relief. The only party in parliament to oppose the Lisbon Treaty had been the Left Party. However, the Christian Social Union -- the Bavarian sister party to Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) -- then looked like putting a spanner in the works by demanding that an additional 14 demands be addressed in any future legislation. Accusations of Euroskepticism and populism were soon levied at the CSU. A compromise was hammered out and all but the Left Party voted for the so-called accompanying law on Tuesday. In the end 446 members of parliament voted in favor of the legislation, 46 voted against and there were two abstentions.

A German Constitutional Court ruling, that the treaty may not be ratified without additional powers being given to the German Parliament, is not a concession from the EU.

Spiritoftheseventies

prinz wrote: »

What concessions were made to Germany? I see an article about German national politics and law, I don't see anything about concessions made to Germany.

from quoted text
1.However, it also ruled that the German parliament's role in the implementation of European law needed to be strengthened.

2 Accusations of Euroskepticism and populism were soon levied at the CSU. A compromise was hammered out and all but the Left Party voted for the so-called accompanying law on Tuesday.