Lisbon: Yes for Jobs?

squod

Scofflaw wrote: »

You're entitled to that as a belief, but the numbers are against you. If you tot up everyone who voted on the Constitution and Lisbon, the scores are 27m Yes against 23m No.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And the rest of europe?

squod

Scofflaw wrote: »

The French said No, and got concessions. The Dutch said No, and got concessions. The Constitution was defeated, and the whole 'constitutional' apparatus was dropped - Lisbon contains only the reforms, plus the changes the Dutch and French wanted (not all of what they wanted, but most, including the dropping of the constitutional aspects).

The Irish voted No, and got concessions. There's a pattern here.

What makes you sure this version of lisbon then, is the correct version to vote yes on?

Scofflaw

squod wrote: »

And the rest of europe?

Haven't voted on it, which makes claiming they'd vote either way a bit of an exercise in faith.

What makes you sure this version of lisbon then, is the correct version to vote yes on?

Reading the thing. I've read the whole consolidated version, compared it to Nice, and summarised the changes. Read Crotty, read the German constitutional judgement, been debating it since it was signed, pretty much. Kind of sad, really, given the redundancy of that knowledge in a couple of weeks time, one way or another.

Anyway, what that exercise told me is that I want what's in there, and there's nothing in it that I have any strenuous objection to. There's none of the stuff that gets claimed for it by the No campaigns (or by most of the Yes campaigns, come to that).

If you're asking me whether we should hold out for further concessions - no, I don't. We won't get them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

... I've read the whole consolidated version, compared it to Nice, and summarised the changes. Read Crotty, read the German constitutional judgement, been debating it since it was signed, pretty much. Kind of sad, really, given the redundancy of that knowledge in a couple of weeks time, one way or another...

What a thought! All that expertise, and no disputes on which to deploy it. May I be the first to offer my commiserations?

ei.sdraob

squod wrote: »

Oh yeah we should vote for the 'nice' people. Fairy Queens don't do politcs.
In case your missing something, some of our politicians aren't 'nice' either.

let me highlight something (in your own reply)

some of our politicians aren't 'nice' either.

you dont get it,

we know FF are a mess and cant wait for an election to vote them out, but they are our mess, we dont need all the crap associated with UKIP entering irish politics, UKIP dont represent anyone in Ireland

squod

ei.sdraob wrote: »

let me highlight something (in your own reply)




you dont get it,

we know FF are a mess and cant wait for an election to vote them out, but they are our mess, we dont need all the crap associated with UKIP entering irish politics, UKIP dont represent anyone in Ireland

If it makes any difference dude, FF are your mess. I don't vote for them.

Better if I quote someone on the yes side again then.

"To attempt to re-run a referendum as a means of reversing the democratic decision taken by the people would rightly be regarded as an affront" Dick Roche.

There is no justification for running Lisbon a second time. I don't care if Dick Roche says it, Nigel Farage says it or anyone else.

PopeBuckfastXVI

squod wrote: »

If it makes any difference dude, FF are your mess. I don't vote for them.

Neither did I, we have something in common!

K-9

squod wrote: »

There is no justification for running Lisbon a second time. I don't care if Dick Roche says it, Nigel Farage says it or anyone else.

Even if it addresses the concerns of some of the electorate?

Sam Vimes

squod wrote: »

If it makes any difference dude, FF are your mess. I don't vote for them.

Neither did I or most of the people on this forum on both sides of the debate

squod wrote: »

"To attempt to re-run a referendum as a means of reversing the democratic decision taken by the people would rightly be regarded as an affront" Dick Roche.

It's not possible to run a referendum as a means of reversing the democratic decision taken by the people unless it's rigged. Each and every time you run the referendum the outcome will be the democratic decision of the people. It might be the same, it might be different, but each time it is their decision

squod wrote: »

There is no justification for running Lisbon a second time. I don't care if Dick Roche says it, Nigel Farage says it or anyone else.

An analogy:

Someone comes to your door and offers you a rotten looking smelly old backpack. You say no and slam the door on him

He rings the doorbell again but this time he opens the bag and shows you the €1 million inside it.

You were offered the same thing both times but the first time you weren't fully aware of all the facts. Would you again slam the door in his face simply for having the cheek to ask you again?

squod

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Neither did I or most of the people on this forum on both sides of the debate


It's not possible to run a referendum as a means of reversing the democratic decision taken by the people unless it's rigged. Each and every time you run the referendum the outcome will be the democratic decision of the people. It might be the same, it might be different, but each time it is their decision



An analogy:

Someone comes to your door and offers you a rotten looking smelly old backpack. You say no and slam the door on him

He rings the doorbell again but this time he opens the bag and shows you the €1 million inside it.

You were offered the same thing both times but the first time you weren't fully aware of all the facts. Would you again slam the door in his face simply for having the cheek to ask you again?

It's the same treaty. Those assurances you got are the brick in the bag were the cash should be. No need to vote for a brick in a bag!

squod

K-9 wrote: »

Even if it addresses the concerns of some of the electorate?

Ad if there's more concerns after the next referendum, do we vote again?

Best out of three, five in a row. A bi-annual referendum?

Sam Vimes

squod wrote: »

It's the same treaty. Those assurances you got are the brick in the bag were the cash should be. No need to vote for a brick in a bag!

And it was the same bag. Your problem is now not that you were asked again, your problem is that you don't think the assurances are worth anything. If they were valuable of course it's acceptable to ask you again.

So why don't you think the assurances are worth anything?


btw, the treaty text may be the same but we will now keep our commissioner where if we had voted yes the first time we wouldn't (or if we vote no now for that matter). It's just that this change didn't require a change to the treaty text, an existing rule was used to make the change

Sam Vimes

squod wrote: »

Ad if there's more concerns after the next referendum, do we vote again?

Best out of three, five in a row. A bi-annual referendum?

If there are more concerns that are in the treaty, they will be negotiated. If, like last time, there are concerns that are not in the treaty, a €1.84 minimum wage for example, well then there's nothing to change is there.....

squod

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And it was the same bag. Your problem is now not that you were asked again, your problem is that you don't think the assurances are worth anything. If they were valuable of course it's acceptable to ask you again.

So why don't you think the assurances are worth anything?


btw, the treaty text may be the same but we will now keep our commissioner where if we had voted yes the first time we wouldn't (or if we vote no now for that matter). It's just that this change didn't require a change to the treaty text, an existing rule was used to make the change

It matters little to me if we keep our commissioner. The structure of voting in Europe will change, we'll be influenced by these changes. If you want the structure to change vote yes, if you don't then vote no.

Sam Vimes

squod wrote: »

It matters little to me if we keep our commissioner. The structure of voting in Europe will change, we'll be influenced by these changes. If you want the structure to change vote yes, if you don't then vote no.

Firstly, why do you object to the structure of voting changing?


Now, it matters little to you that we will keep our commissioner but you are not the entire Irish electorate. It mattered a great deal to at least 30% of no voters last time. The issues of taxation, abortion, neutrality and conscription also mattered to at least 30%. Where you see a brick in the bag, these people see the €1 million because their problems with the treaty have been addressed. Is that not justification to ask them if they've now changed their mind?

squod

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If there are more concerns that are in the treaty, they will be negotiated. If, like last time, there are concerns that are not in the treaty, a €1.84 minimum wage for example, well then there's nothing to change is there.....

There's nothing to change if we vote no now in that regard. People have already stated the Lisbon Treaty will by affected by previous labour related hearings. Possibly to workers detriment.

Sam Vimes

squod wrote: »

There's nothing to change if we vote no now in that regard. People have already stated the Lisbon Treaty will by affected by previous labour related hearings. Possibly to workers detriment.

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that people were pointing to already existing laws and then trying to make out that they were in some way related to Lisbon and meant you should vote no to it?

And if so, and if it's found that a large amount of people voted no for that reason, would that not be a reason to educate them and ask them to reconsider, since they sill have voted no to prevent something even though voting no was never going to prevent it?

squod

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Firstly, why do you object to the structure of voting changing?


Now, it matters little to you that we will keep our commissioner but you are not the entire Irish electorate. It mattered a great deal to at least 30% of no voters last time. The issues of taxation, abortion, neutrality and conscription also mattered to at least 30%. Where you see a brick in the bag, these people see the €1 million because their problems with the treaty have been addressed. Is that not justification to ask them if they've now changed their mind?

Yes it mattered. The voting structures will still affect us. Having a commissioner is great. We already have one under nice. Why would I vote yes so? I'd vote yes if I wanted those structures changed. I don't. So i'm voting no.

K-9

squod wrote: »

Ad if there's more concerns after the next referendum, do we vote again?

Best out of three, five in a row. A bi-annual referendum?

Well, there is a limit on how many concerns they can address.

squod wrote: »

There's nothing to change if we vote no now in that regard. People have already stated the Lisbon Treaty will by affected by previous labour related hearings. Possibly to workers detriment.

From my reading of cases like the Laval judgment, these cases are more linked to failures at National Govt. level, not EU level.

squod

K-9 wrote: »

From my reading of cases like the Laval judgment, these cases are more linked to failures at National Govt. level, not EU level.

Then there's no need to reflect them in Lisbon. A simple no vote will solve that.

Sam Vimes

squod wrote: »

Yes it mattered. The voting structures will still affect us. Having a commissioner is great. We already have one under nice. Why would I vote yes so? I'd vote yes if I wanted those structures changed. I don't. So i'm voting no.

No we don't have a commissioner under Nice. Under Nice the size of the commission is being reduced in 2011. Lisbon just defined how it would be done. We will lose our commissioner in 2 years if we vote no.

And I asked you why you don't want the voting structures changed, I didn't ask you to restate that you don't.

And you're changing the subject now. This is how it went:

You: There's no justification for holding another referendum
Me: The justification is they've addressed many of the issues of previous no voters
You: Well they didn't address my issues
Me: You're not the whole country

Continue......

squod

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No we don't have a commissioner under Nice. Under Nice the size of the commission is being reduced in 2011. Lisbon just defined how it would be done. We will lose our commissioner in 2 years if we vote no.

And I asked you why you don't want the voting structures changed, I didn't ask you to restate that you don't.

And you're changing the subject now. This is how it went:

You: There's no justification for holding another referendum
Me: The justification is they've addressed many of the issues of previous no voters
You: Well they didn't address my issues
Me: You're not the whole country

Continue......

I went into this before in another thread. Let say you want X to happen.
Do you go straight ahead and try to get X passed or do you wait untill the majority share of voters present will support your project X.

Lisbon is gonna make voting packs or agreements easier to happen. Since all you'd have to do is wait till like minded states get their turn to vote with you.

Kewl n'all if that's what you want. To me it seems a little bit more undemocratic than the system we have now. As I've said the solution to that is simple.

'If the Irish people vote no it will cause a referendum in Britain, which would be a fine democratic thing for the peoples of Europe to have an opportunity to stop and debate their future.'


People of Europe should have an opportunity to stop and debate their future together. What is wrong with that?

ei.sdraob

squod wrote: »

People of Europe should have an opportunity to stop and debate their future together. What is wrong with that?

there is nothing stopping them

i dont see protests or riots on the streets of Europe because of Lisbon

ixtlan

squod wrote: »

'If the Irish people vote no it will cause a referendum in Britain, which would be a fine democratic thing for the peoples of Europe to have an opportunity to stop and debate their future.'

People keep mentioning this, I think because it makes no voters feel better that it won't be Ireland alone blocking EU progress.

The reality is that Cameron's promise of a UK referendum is nonsense. Say we vote no, and Cameron is Prime Minister. What sort of government runs a referendum which it doesn't want to pass and which can achieve nothing even if it does pass? What a waste of money!

What would happen if they voted yes?! Ireland would still be blocking Lisbon. Would you want Ireland to vote a third time after the UK yes?

People seem to want the UK to vote no to absolve us of responsibility. It won't happen. We may vote no, and if so we will be the ones responsible. Other states may cheer us, like the Czechs and the British, and we may join a mini-club of Euroskeptics, but it will have been us that triggered it.

Ix.

Sam Vimes

squod wrote: »

I went into this before in another thread. Let say you want X to happen.
Do you go straight ahead and try to get X passed or do you wait untill the majority share of voters present will support your project X.

Lisbon is gonna make voting packs or agreements easier to happen. Since all you'd have to do is wait till like minded states get their turn to vote with you.

Kewl n'all if that's what you want. To me it seems a little bit more undemocratic than the system we have now. As I've said the solution to that is simple.

The system we have now (in some areas) is that if you want to get X passed, you have to wait until everyone supports your project X. What Lisbon proposes to do is make it (in some areas) that 55% must support X (15 countries) and they must represent 65% of the EU population. It also stipulates that no fewer than 4 countries can block a change.

How is that undemocratic? As with anything democratic, all you'd have to do is wait till like minded [people] get their turn to vote with you. It's just a matter of how many people you need.

squod wrote: »

'If the Irish people vote no it will cause a referendum in Britain, which would be a fine democratic thing for the peoples of Europe to have an opportunity to stop and debate their future.'

People of Europe should have an opportunity to stop and debate their future together. What is wrong with that?

1. It will do no such thing. The Lisbon treaty will be finished on Oct 2nd if we vote no.
2. Governments are meant to make decisions for their people and if you don't like the decisions you vote out the government. Governments make decisions every day that have ramifications a hundred times greater than this treaty. Look at NAMA that's going through without one.
3. Ireland is having a referendum because our constitution requires it but the other countries have no such clause. There is nothing odd about this treaty not being put to referendum in those countries, it's by far the norm. EU countries have had or planned referendums 15% of the times they could have
4. It's not up to us to tell those countries they should do it our way and put every treaty to referendum. If the people of those countries wanted one and were against this treaty being ratified they'd be out protesting and making it clear that they'd be voting their governments out if the treaty goes through. The fact that they're not says that they're happy for this to be one of the million things their governments decide for them
5. Not only do other countries not value referendums like we do, in Germany and The Netherlands they're illegal because they're so easy to abuse, as has happened here. Insisting that other countries have referendums is forcing Irish values on them

Sam Vimes

Also, you still haven't answered:

You: There's no justification for holding another referendum
Me: The justification is they've addressed many of the issues of previous no voters
You: Well they didn't address my issues
Me: You're not the whole country

Continue......

RandomName2

ixtlan wrote: »

People keep mentioning this, I think because it makes no voters feel better that it won't be Ireland alone blocking EU progress.

The reality is that Cameron's promise of a UK referendum is nonsense. Say we vote no, and Cameron is Prime Minister. What sort of government runs a referendum which it doesn't want to pass and which can achieve nothing even if it does pass? What a waste of money!

What would happen if they voted yes?! Ireland would still be blocking Lisbon. Would you want Ireland to vote a third time after the UK yes?

People seem to want the UK to vote no to absolve us of responsibility. It won't happen. We may vote no, and if so we will be the ones responsible. Other states may cheer us, like the Czechs and the British, and we may join a mini-club of Euroskeptics, but it will have been us that triggered it.

Ix.

So the guilt trip goes on?

Besides which, the founding block of this argument is that referenda are bad.

If the British public rejects Lisbon it is bad - they should not be given an opportunity to do so.

But hey! Don't let me steal your thunder - the politicians have it right (they must do - we elected them, after all) and any thoughts to the contrary are without foundation. Indeed, if you voice an objection, you are unpatriotic (at least to the suprastate). Actually, this is in reality true - although it is certainly arguable how much loyalty one owes a suprastate .

And Sam Vimes, you seem to miss the implications of a second referendum. Which is understandable, as you can't argue in favour of something based on semantics if you believe it to be wrong in principle.

But anyway, as I already said, no voters mention Briatin as a sort of morale booster. It is to undermine the falsehoods about being forced out of the EU. It is to make assumptions that a second 'no' vote would destroy the Lisbon Treaty - which it won't. IT WILL BE PASSED. Guaranteed. 100% No doubt. Must be some way around Crotty...

Sam Vimes

RandomName2 wrote: »

And Sam Vimes, you seem to miss the implications of a second referendum. Which is understandable, as you can't argue in favour of something based on semantics if you believe it to be wrong in principle.

I'm lost...

RandomName2 wrote: »

But anyway, as I already said, no voters mention Briatin as a sort of morale booster. It is to undermine the falsehoods about being forced out of the EU. It is to make assumptions that a second 'no' vote would destroy the Lisbon Treaty - which it won't. IT WILL BE PASSED. Guaranteed. 100% No doubt. Must be some way around Crotty...

Bet you a euro

edit: btw, I'm betting that if we vote no the treaty will not be passed in its current form. Not that it won't be passed this time

squod

ixtlan wrote: »

People keep mentioning this, I think because it makes no voters feel better that it won't be Ireland alone blocking EU progress.

The reality is that Cameron's promise of a UK referendum is nonsense. Say we vote no, and Cameron is Prime Minister. What sort of government runs a referendum which it doesn't want to pass and which can achieve nothing even if it does pass? What a waste of money!

What would happen if they voted yes?! Ireland would still be blocking Lisbon. Would you want Ireland to vote a third time after the UK yes?

People seem to want the UK to vote no to absolve us of responsibility. It won't happen. We may vote no, and if so we will be the ones responsible. Other states may cheer us, like the Czechs and the British, and we may join a mini-club of Euroskeptics, but it will have been us that triggered it.

Ix.

Yes I keep mentioning this, because it's relevant. Why are we being bullied and corralled into voting again, before England has a chance to?

Maybe it's because we can be can be bullied and corralled. Britain, along with other European countries, could vote on Lisbon a hundred times over and the same result would be achieved. Where we'd just be pushed into changing our minds, we're a soft target. Ask FF that.

If the yes camp are so confident in Lisbon then holding off wouldn't have made one single bit of difference to peoples' views after Britain rejects it.

No person on this Island can be held responsible, we didn't create Lisbon. We're just dealing with the sh*t.

meglome

squod wrote: »

Yes I keep mentioning this, because it's relevant. Why are we being bullied and corralled into voting again, before England has a chance to?

I'm coming in at the end of this but who bullied you? Did someone call round?

And the UK still have a pro-Lisbon Labour government which is approving Lisbon.