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

Has Declan Ganley / Coir hired a team of shills?

Options
2456

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    ixtlan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,213 ✭✭✭ixtlan


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    As far as I know, there is no formal mechanism for punishing states that renege on agreements - a state that does so would simply find it harder to form international agreements in future.

    I guess the point I would make on this is that if the states renege on those agreements, they might do the same with the EU agreements, and then it becomes somewhat irrelevant debating whether the guarantees have no value because they are outside the treaty because even the treaty may be reneged on and hence it also has no value.

    It's sort of a circular argument...

    Either people trust that the treaty will be honoured in which case the guarantees will also be, and the no side seems to believe the treaty will be honoured since they are so worried about what is in (or not in) it.

    Or they don't trust the guarantees, in which case they should not trust the treaty either, and debating what's in (or not in it) is irrelevant.

    Ix.


  • Options
    #33
    Toiletroll
    Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭Toiletroll


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Really? Perhaps you'd like to present some evidence for that claim before you make it again.

    regards,
    Scofflaw

    I will find it - it was stated on Vincent Browne last week and the yes side did not disagree with it!


  • Options
    #34
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Toiletroll wrote: »
    I will find it - it was stated on Vincent Browne last week and the yes side did not disagree with it!

    "Did not disagree with on a chat show" is not "agree", even within the parallel universe of the Lisbon 'debate'.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #35
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    ixtlan wrote: »
    Or they don't trust the guarantees, in which case they should not trust the treaty either, and debating what's in (or not in it) is irrelevant.

    Ix.

    True. As I've said to someone before, people who honestly believe that reneging on the guarantees is a possibility should not be debating the pros and cons of the treaty, they should be campaigning for us to sever all links with this maniacal rogue union that reneges on legally binding international agreements on a whim


  • Options
    #36
    Toiletroll
    Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭Toiletroll


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    "Did not disagree with on a chat show" is not "agree", even within the parallel universe of the Lisbon 'debate'.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Still searching but I think it refers to QMV in place of currently veto-able legislation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    True. As I've said to someone before, people who honestly believe that reneging on the guarantees is a possibility should not be debating the pros and cons of the treaty, they should be campaigning for us to sever all links with this maniacal rogue union that reneges on legally binding international agreements on a whim

    And to start building up our army...


  • Options
    #38
    ro09
    Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭ro09


    Sleepy wrote: »
    Seriously?

    The amount of newbie posters spouting nonsense 'reasons' to vote no to Lisbon in posts that often make it very clear that English isn't their first language...

    Is this the beginning of a new age of political campaigning through the spreading of misinformation on the internet? If so, is this something we want to allow on boards? Should we be looking at a minimum post count before one is allowed to post on Politics?

    For what it's worth, I'm pretty certain I'm voting yes to the treaty based mainly on the fact that the only one's against it are the crackpots and I've not heard a single solid reason to vote no.

    I don't support any Party but I am voting No because every time we sign a Treaty into Law we loose some of our own Law making abilities in certain areas, we loose the Power to Govern our Own People in certain areas, this is due to the fact that all EU Law supersedes our Constitutional Law - Take a read of Article 29 . 10 of our Constitution.

    Also are you calling for some sort of censorship of peoples opinions????

    Also are you having a go at the Irish Language??????


  • Options
    #39
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    ro09 wrote: »
    I don't support any Party but I am voting No because every time we sign a Treaty into Law we loose some of our own Law making abilities in certain areas, we loose the Power to Govern our Own People in certain areas, this is due to the fact that all EU Law supersedes our Constitutional Law - Take a read of Article 29 . 10 of our Constitution.

    Also are you calling for some sort of censorship of peoples opinions????

    Also are you having a go at the Irish Language??????

    Like Spamalot?
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61989682&postcount=71

    You should totally vote yes then, it means we could leave the EU and get rid of that pesky Article 29.10.


  • Options
    #40
    Toiletroll
    Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭Toiletroll


    Toiletroll wrote: »
    I will find it - it was stated on Vincent Browne last week and the yes side did not disagree with it!

    In more than 60 areas of policy, countries lose the right to veto legislation they disagree with - on everything from transport to the rights of criminal suspects and aspects of foreign policy. Britain would lose nearly 30% of its power to block legislation it disagrees with, while Ireland would lose 40%.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7927742.stm


  • Options
    #41
    ro09
    Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭ro09


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Like Spamalot?
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61989682&postcount=71

    You should totally vote yes then, it means we could leave the EU and get rid of that pesky Article 29.10.

    Why would we want to leave the EU ?????

    Voting No will not take us out of the EU like some posters are implying.

    I think Free movement of Goods and Services and Business is good.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    Toiletroll wrote: »
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7927742.stm

    You forgot to attribute the quote for your 40% figure.

    Let me help.

    Lorraine Mullally is Director of Open Europe, in the UK.


  • Options
    #43
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    ro09 wrote: »
    Why would we want to leave the EU ?????
    I think Free movement of Goods and Services and Business is good.

    Then you'll have to live with 29.10 I'm afraid.


  • Options
    #44
    Toiletroll
    Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭Toiletroll


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    You forgot to attribute the quote for your 40% figure.

    Let me help.

    Lorraine Mullally is Director of Open Europe, in the UK.

    Cop on it doesnt matter who or where it comes from. Stop being protectionist when it suits. You might not like the UK coming here but I dont mind!

    See below if you dont liek the UK coming over here then.
    “The Treaty will remain intact, with all that that entails - including a massive loss of power to the EU. This Treaty will mean that ordinary people in Ireland will lose power to impact on decisions that affect their daily lives - as Ireland loses 40% of its power to block legislation it disagrees with.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/1214/breaking19.htm


  • Options
    #45
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    you are quoting the same crowd again!
    The director of eurosceptic thinktank Open Europe, Lorraine Mullally,


  • Options
    #46
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Toiletroll wrote: »
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7927742.stm

    This is not evidence. It is the unbacked opinion of another person opposed to the Treaty. Evidence would involve some data.

    Back it up or stop claiming it.

    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #47
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    Toiletroll wrote: »
    Cop on it doesnt matter who or where it comes from. Stop being protectionist when it suits. You might not like the UK coming here but I dont mind!

    See below if you dont liek the UK coming over here then.



    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/1214/breaking19.htm

    Lorraine Mullally is Irish, but biased, and certainly doesn't represent 'both sides' of the debate when she claims this 40% figure.


  • Options
    #48
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Toiletroll, do you realise that Ireland has never used its veto?

    And do you realise that even in areas where QMV currently applies unanimity is the norm?

    And do you realise that every country is losing its veto in these areas, not just Ireland, so England and Germany can be overruled just as easily as us?

    And do you know that there is a clause to prevent just 3 large countries from blocking a change, even if they represent over 65% of the EU population?

    And do you like a system where just one of 26 countries can block something every other country wants, like how the US blocks UN sanctions against Israel and enforces the embargo on Cuba or how China blocks any action against Sudan because of their business interests?


    Which areas are you particularly worried about moving to QMV? Taxation and defence I could understand but they're staying unanimous. Some things are better decided at EU level, eg if Ireland enacts a climate change policy it doesn't make a whole lot of a difference. Or how the EU forced the mobile networks to lower roaming rates or regulates food quality

    Do you think that the interests of our neighbours are so far removed from ours that at least 15 of them would want to enact a policy that's devastating to Ireland? (remember they can't effect our taxes)


  • Options
    #49
    Toiletroll
    Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭Toiletroll


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Toiletroll, do you realise that Ireland has never used its veto?

    And do you realise that even in areas where QMV currently applies unanimity is the norm?

    And do you realise that every country is losing its veto in these areas, not just Ireland, so England and Germany can be overruled just as easily as us?

    And do you know that there is a clause to prevent just 3 large countries from blocking a change, even if they represent over 65% of the EU population?

    And do you like a system where just one of 26 countries can block something every other country wants, like how the US blocks UN sanctions against Israel and enforces the embargo on Cuba or how China blocks any action against Sudan because of their business interests?


    Which areas are you particularly worried about moving to QMV? Taxation and defence I could understand but they're staying unanimous. Some things are better decided at EU level, eg if Ireland enacts a climate change policy it doesn't make a whole lot of a difference. Or how the EU forced the mobile networks to lower roaming rates or regulates food quality

    Do you think that the interests of our neighbours are so far removed from ours that at least 15 of them would want to enact a policy that's devastating to Ireland? (remember they can't effect our taxes)

    They didnt have a vote. The only two countries who had a vote, the French and Dutch said NO. They were bypassed. I dont like that kind of anti democratic behaviour!

    We never used our veto because having the veto means that we could make a big deal about anything controversial.

    If the the long term plan of the EU was to remove the veto then why would they bother with anything controversial which would jeapordise Lisbon and their long term goal of removing the veto? Once the veto is removed they have to refrain less on controversial legislation.


  • Options
    #50
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Toiletroll wrote: »
    They didnt have a vote. The only two countries who had a vote, the French and Dutch said NO. They were bypassed. I dont like that kind of anti democratic behaviour!

    We never used our veto because having the veto means that we could make a big deal about anything controversial.

    If the the long term plan of the EU was to remove the veto then why would they bother with anything controversial which would jeapordise Lisbon and their long term goal of removing the veto? Once the veto is removed they have to refrain less on controversial legislation.

    You are, as far as I can tell, confusing the process of treaty ratification with voting on the EU's Council of Ministers.

    impressed,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #51
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Toiletroll wrote: »
    They didnt have a vote. The only two countries who had a vote, the French and Dutch said NO. They were bypassed. I dont like that kind of anti democratic behaviour!
    Well it's a good thing that that's not what happened so isn't it? The french and dutch voted no, the parts of the treaty that they objected to were removed and then their governments ratified the new treaty. That's how democracy works. Something is proposed, you voice your objections and a compromise is reached. The distinct lack of protests in those countries suggests to me that this treaty is one more of the millions of things that they're happy for their government to decide for them and with the farce this referendum has become here I wish we weren't having a referendum either. It's embarrassing
    Toiletroll wrote: »
    We never used our veto because having the veto means that we could make a big deal about anything controversial.

    If the the long term plan of the EU was to remove the veto then why would they bother with anything controversial which would jeapordise Lisbon and their long term goal of removing the veto? Once the veto is removed they have to refrain less on controversial legislation.

    Yes indeed. The EU, by which you mean the heads of state of the governments of our neighbours, have been lulling us into a false sense of security for the last 36 years by negotiating, compromising and generally respecting our wishes so that they can strip away all sovereign power from everyone, including themselves, and share it among everyone, including us, for the purposes of forcing changes on us. They don't seem to be very good at this whole empire thing though since they've put in loads of checks and balances to prevent this happening, they've made it so we can also force changes on them and they've laid out specifically in Lisbon how we can leave the EU if they try to do it

    CT is that way mate ---->


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Toiletroll wrote: »
    Once the veto is removed they have to refrain less on controversial legislation.

    It isn't being removed in all areas so by your logic, nothing controversial will be affected.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #53
    Ciaran500
    Registered Users Posts: 8,225 ✭✭✭Ciaran500


    Are we going to discuss the actual topic of this thread at all?

    EDIT:Interestingly it looks like the exact type of poster mentioned in the OP is the one who has dragged the thread way off topic.


  • Options
    #54
    Euro_Kraut
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,957 ✭✭✭Euro_Kraut


    Toiletroll wrote: »
    They didnt have a vote. The only two countries who had a vote, the French and Dutch said NO. They were bypassed. I dont like that kind of anti democratic behaviour!

    Ah come on... How many times have we gone over this. Spain and Luxembourg also voted on the EU constitution. They voted Yes.

    Your lack of knowledge suggests that you have not really thought through this issue.


  • Options
    #55
    Toiletroll
    Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭Toiletroll


    Euro_Kraut wrote: »
    Ah come on... How many times have we gone over this. Spain and Luxembourg also voted on the EU constitution. They voted Yes.

    Your lack of knowledge suggests that you have not really thought through this issue.

    Spain unemployment soared to 20% very soon after... Not related but there ya go...


  • Options
    #56
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Toiletroll wrote: »
    Spain unemployment soared to 20% very soon after... Not related but there ya go...

    How is that relevant to Lisbon, the Constitution or the EU?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #57
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Toiletroll wrote: »
    Spain unemployment soared to 20% very soon after... Not related but there ya go...

    What is it with this bull****, how can voting Yes to a treaty which was never brought in lead to unemployment? It makes no sense and yet people are repeating it.


  • Options
    #58
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Toiletroll wrote: »
    Spain unemployment soared to 20% very soon after... Not related but there ya go...

    Do not make this claim, because it is both false and mendacious. This is your only warning.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #59
    zenno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭zenno


    Sleepy wrote: »
    Seriously?

    The amount of newbie posters spouting nonsense 'reasons' to vote no to Lisbon in posts that often make it very clear that English isn't their first language...

    Is this the beginning of a new age of political campaigning through the spreading of misinformation on the internet? If so, is this something we want to allow on boards? Should we be looking at a minimum post count before one is allowed to post on Politics?

    For what it's worth, I'm pretty certain I'm voting yes to the treaty based mainly on the fact that the only one's against it are the crackpots and I've not heard a single solid reason to vote no.


    time to wake up "SLEEPY" i'm sick of people like yourself attacking the no side as if they have a problem expressing their views ? which they don't. is this the way you communicate truly with everyone ? i wonder. the yes side are showing their true colours in all posts about lisbon on this boards forum.

    don't forget don't be afraid to vote yes or no on this treaty, the yes camp right now are like dictators as far as i can see. i would ignore most of what the yes sayers are saying and concentrate on the real issues at hand. theres alot of yes wasters out there or here at the moment.


  • Options
    #60
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    zenno wrote: »
    time to wake up "SLEEPY" i'm sick of people like yourself attacking the no side as if they have a problem expressing their views ? which they don't. is this the way you communicate truly with everyone ? i wonder. the yes side are showing their true colours in all posts about lisbon on this boards forum.

    don't forget don't be afraid to vote yes or no on this treaty, the yes camp right now are like dictators as far as i can see. i would ignore most of what the yes sayers are saying and concentrate on the real issues at hand. theres alot of yes wasters out there or here at the moment.

    Facepalm!

    It would be easy to do a tit for tat, so what are the real issues?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Happy Monday
    Registered Users Posts: 1,211 ✭✭✭Happy Monday


    Sleepy wrote: »
    The amount of newbie posters spouting nonsense 'reasons' to vote no to Lisbon in posts that often make it very clear that English isn't their first language...

    English will not be the first language of your European masters either......


Advertisement