The silencing of EU citizens

meglome

mayordenis wrote: »

what are you on about at all?

Too much sense?

thebman

TheScribbler wrote: »

There was an interesting take on the impending irish elections given in the Sunday Times a week ago that was suggestive that the Yes campaign was being publicly funded in Ireland. Is this appropriate that taxpayers should be payhing for governemtn publicity to urge the people to say Yes?

Given we are borrowing that money from the ECB I'd say its very appropriate.

moogester

I'd say thats why the rest of Europe isn't getting a chance to vote in a referendum.......they know damn well that the majority of most countries would vote NO.

Hope & pray
1. Irish people vote NO again
2. Czech president can hold out long enough for a change in govt in the UK & hopefully a referendum on Lisbon here....will just have to trust that the Tories dont go back on their word.

ei.sdraob

moogester wrote: »

I'd say thats why the rest of Europe isn't getting a chance to vote in a referendum.......they know damn well that the majority of most countries would vote NO.

Hope & pray
1. Irish people vote NO again
2. Czech president can hold out long enough for a change in govt in the UK & hopefully a referendum on Lisbon here....will just have to trust that the Tories dont go back on their word.

Referendums are illegal in some countries like Germany

where it was used by Hitler to gain power

how dare you force your beliefs on other countries?

go smell the hypocrisy coming out of your rear

/

faceman

imeddyhobbs wrote: »

Intel, Ryanair & Microsoft have made billions out of Ireland and will continue to do so,the truth is that intel,microsoft and ryanair have already let go 100's of staff here in very recent history but yet the bosses of these companys tell us that a yes vote will create jobs...LOL...need i say more about these captains of industry who only care about money

American multinationals employ over 300,000 people in Ireland between the 600 US companies that are based here.

A No vote could, and more likely will be seen as a negative by foreign investors. Up to now, Ireland has been stable, pro-business place to do business. Within Europe, the EU gives Ireland economic stability. There is a perception overseas of Ireland's existing influence in the EU, something that would be further solidified by the permanent (albeit unnecessary) appointment of an Irish Commissionaire. (Remember a No vote means we wont have a commissionaire for a number of years)

moogester

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Referendums are illegal in some countries like Germany

where it was used by Hitler to gain power

how dare you force your beliefs on other countries?

go smell the hypocrisy coming out of your rear

/

I'm not forcing my beliefs on anyone - unlike our government

ei.sdraob

moogester wrote: »

I'm not forcing my beliefs on anyone - unlike our government

Ya Democracy is being circumvented by an election :eek: :rolleyes:

Popel

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Referendums are illegal in some countries like Germany

where it was used by Hitler to gain power

how dare you force your beliefs on other countries?

go smell the hypocrisy coming out of your rear

/

Eh, not quite true, referendums are completely legal in Germany. They are called Volksentscheid. They are often called for on a stately level though, rather than on a federal level.

ei.sdraob

Popel wrote: »

Eh, not quite true, referendums are completely legal in Germany. They are called Volksentscheid. They are often called for on a stately level though, rather than on a federal level.

and what happens if half the German states vote YES and half vote NO

imeddyhobbs

faceman wrote: »

American multinationals employ over 300,000 people in Ireland between the 600 US companies that are based here.

A No vote could, and more likely will be seen as a negative by foreign investors. Up to now, Ireland has been stable, pro-business place to do business. Within Europe, the EU gives Ireland economic stability. There is a perception overseas of Ireland's existing influence in the EU, something that would be further solidified by the permanent (albeit unnecessary) appointment of an Irish Commissionaire. (Remember a No vote means we wont have a commissionaire for a number of years)

A lot of brackets in there but how n ever..

In 2004 there was a lot of protesting here against the invasion of Iraq by the the united states,most of the people back then said that we should let the US do what they want to do in Iraq,if we opposed them then Ireland would lose jobs because american companys would pull out of Ireland...we did oppose them and we didn't lose any jobs did we?

5 years on we have another situation and the same bull**** about american companys pulling out of here is up on the agenda again,Its simple.. if a company can make money in Ireland then they will stay here,Lisbon has nothing to do with that.

Daftendirekt

Popel wrote: »

Eh, not quite true, referendums are completely legal in Germany. They are called Volksentscheid. They are often called for on a stately level though, rather than on a federal level.

I think specifically, it's illegal to change the German Constitution by referendum.

K-9

How does the Citizens Initiative fit in with all of this?

anonymous_joe

imeddyhobbs wrote: »

A lot of brackets in there but how n ever..

In 2004 there was a lot of protesting here against the invasion of Iraq by the the united states,most of the people back then said that we should let the US do what they want to do in Iraq,if we opposed them then Ireland would lose jobs because american companys would pull out of Ireland...we did oppose them and we didn't lose any jobs did we?

5 years on we have another situation and the same bull**** about american companys pulling out of here is up on the agenda again,Its simple.. if a company can make money in Ireland then they will stay here,Lisbon has nothing to do with that.

And what they're here for is easy access to the EU.

If Ireland appears to be going the same way as the Euro-skeptic Brits, then that's reason to relocate elsewhere.

I am delighted though, to see so many disparate European groups coming together, who would ever have thought that Sinn Féin, UKIP and German neo-Nazis would all be united?

roosh

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Who cares how they would like us to vote? I'll vote in my country for the way I'd like to vote. I don't care if a French guy wants me to vote No or a German wants me to vote Yes.

I think it is cause for concern that they weren't even offered the chance to vote. The two biggest countries in Europe didn't offer their people a chance to vote, and we only have it because treaties Like Lisbon haven't yet superceded our constitution. The exact same will happen to us in the future. The EU will enact legislation with or without our approval. We the people, will have less of a say.

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Intel, Ryanair & Microsoft hire thousands of people in Ireland and invest millions to our economy so I don't think it's unusual that they're interested in the outcome of the Lisbon treaty. How many huge employers want us to vote no?

It's not unusual that they would have an interest, but their motivation has to be questioned. How long will Ireland remain an attractive place for technology multi-nationals, when they can easily relocate to lower cost bases - their loyalty lies to their shareholders, not irish workers.

roosh

meglome wrote: »

How much money are the EU spending exactly? Why would it matter how eother EU country's want us to vote. We are voting in Ireland on what's best for Ireland. They can decide what's best for them in their own country's.

They could if they were given the opportunity to do so perhaps, but they haven't been afforded the same opportunity, so like it or not, we are, in effect speaking for them also.

meglome wrote: »

No it's not interesting. Intel, Ryanair, Microsoft are in Ireland and employ thousands of Irish people.


And sorry who is being silenced exactly? You seem to be able to come in here and talk nonsense all you want.

those countries that weren't allowed to vote on Lisbon are the ones being silenced, and we will fall into that category in the future

roosh

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Most of the EU has ratified this treaty as far as I can tell.

Most of the EU governments, not the people. The people of those countries that ratified the treaty were not offered the chance to vote, the reason being touted is because they would likely have voted No.

This is the approach to politics that will follow after Lisbon

Run_to_da_hills

moogester wrote: »

I'd say thats why the rest of Europe isn't getting a chance to vote in a referendum.......they know damn well that the majority of most countries would vote NO.

Hope & pray
1. Irish people vote NO again
2. Czech president can hold out long enough for a change in govt in the UK & hopefully a referendum on Lisbon here....will just have to trust that the Tories don't go back on their word.

Well said, we did better than the French and Dutch, we had the advantage over them with a second referendum :rolleyes: Democracy????

roosh

meglome wrote: »

Maybe you should ask all the thousands of people they employ. Do you run a business? I do and I think the Lisbon treaty is very good. I don't exploit anyone, I don't cheat anyone, I don't underpay anyone so am I one of these 'elites'?

You people would drag us all back to the stone-age, I just hope that people won't be fooled by all the bull and will vote Yes.

To suggest that Voting No would drag us back to the stone age betrays a lack of understanding. A No vote will change absolutely nothing.

In what way will voting Yes to Lisbon be a positive influence on your business if you don't mind me asking

Scofflaw

mangaroosh wrote: »

Most of the EU governments, not the people. The people of those countries that ratified the treaty were not offered the chance to vote, the reason being touted is because they would likely have voted No.

This is the approach to politics that will follow after Lisbon

The reason being that their constitutions dictate other methods of ratification, just as they have done all along.

By the way, the pose of being at all undecided is now too thin for continued use.

cordially,
Scofflaw

roosh

meglome wrote: »

Every country in the EU decided what way they wanted to vote on the Lisbon treaty in the manner set out by their laws. We need a referendum, they don't. What right do we have to decide what the rest of the EU wants?

That is one of the major issues. It wasn't the people of those countries who decided, they didn't get to vote at all. It was simply ratified by the governments, without any consideration for what the people wanted. If we vote Yes we vindicate this decision to not let the people have a voice and we set a dangerous precedent for how we are willing to allow this country and the union be run in future. If the people of countries like Germany don't get a vote, don't get a say, what makes anyone think that little old Ireland will next time round. Lisbon gives power to the European bodies to amend itself, with absolutely no consulation with the people of Europe.

meglome wrote: »

When anyone from the EU suggests that we should vote Yes we are told they are 'bullying us' so are we now bullying the rest of the EU by trying to decide for them?

The reason it is seen as bullying is because no other country has been allowed to vote, and even though we have voted No, there was already a decision made in Europe, not to recognise that vote. It is effectively an attempt to force us to vote the way they want, becaue there have been no actual changes to the Treaty which we are voting on, and there has been no real attempt to inform us properly on the overall ramifications.


We have to question the motivations of those trying to get us to vote Yes, and those trying to get us to Vote No. Those trying to get us to Vote No are asking us to keep things as they are, those asking us to vote Yes are aksing us to hand over more power to them. If I am going to do this, I want to be fully fully convinced it is the right decision. The fact that they have tried to scare people into this decision suggests that it is the wrong one.

roosh

K-9 wrote: »

Check out the UKIP intereference.

Seems it's ok when when UKIP are involved.

Were they defintiely involved? I thought it was a group of MEPs - UKIP aren't investing a penny.

Scofflaw

We have to question the motivations of those trying to get us to vote Yes, and those trying to get us to Vote No. Those trying to get us to Vote No are asking us to keep things as they are, those asking us to vote Yes are aksing us to hand over more power to them. If I am going to do this, I want to be fully fully convinced it is the right decision. The fact that they have tried to scare people into this decision suggests that it is the wrong one.

I thought those who are trying to get us to vote Yes asking us to hand over more power from them to someone else? Isn't that the main point of the No campaigns?

puzzled,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

mangaroosh wrote: »

Were they defintiely involved? I thought it was a group of MEPs - UKIP aren't investing a penny.

It's very obviously a UKIP leaflet, but they're certainly paying for it with EU taxpayers' money.

cordially,
Scofflaw

roosh

faceman wrote: »

American multinationals employ over 300,000 people in Ireland between the 600 US companies that are based here.

A No vote could, and more likely will be seen as a negative by foreign investors. Up to now, Ireland has been stable, pro-business place to do business. Within Europe, the EU gives Ireland economic stability. There is a perception overseas of Ireland's existing influence in the EU, something that would be further solidified by the permanent (albeit unnecessary) appointment of an Irish Commissionaire. (Remember a No vote means we wont have a commissionaire for a number of years)

Ireland won't become a bad place to do business with a No vote, this is part of the scaremongering being thrown about to try and get us to vote Yes. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that this is the case, in fact foreign direct investment actually rose after the last time we voted No.

There is a clear desire in Europe to harmonise taxes. Ireland currently has a favourable rate. Lisbon opens the door, until the next treaty, for this. The beauty of Lisbon is that there doesn't have to be another treaty for quite some time.

roosh

Scofflaw wrote: »

The reason being that their constitutions dictate other methods of ratification, just as they have done all along.

By the way, the pose of being at all undecided is now too thin for continued use.

cordially,
Scofflaw

hence I haven't continued to use it. I was being swayed towards Yes, but certain things have swayed me back, more firmly to no. Having watched, and listened to quite a few debates, the Yes campaigners continue to resort to the fallacious argument that because we have done well under Europe, that we should therefore ratify Lisbon.

Actually, you have been pretty forthright about a lot of things. What is the deal with the double requirement for vetoing decisions in the council of ministers? I've heard mention of the need for 4 countries and 35% of the population in order to veto.

Scofflaw

mangaroosh wrote: »

Ireland won't become a bad place to do business with a No vote, this is part of the scaremongering being thrown about to try and get us to vote Yes. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that this is the case, in fact foreign direct investment actually rose after the last time we voted No.

Given FDI has a five-year lead time, that's not much of an argument. Like it or not, people are seeing this vote as defining Ireland's relationship with the EU.

mangaroosh wrote: »

There is a clear desire in Europe to harmonise taxes. Ireland currently has a favourable rate. Lisbon opens the door, until the next treaty, for this. The beauty of Lisbon is that there doesn't have to be another treaty for quite some time.

Lisbon doesn't "open the door" for harmonisation of direct taxes at all. That's been covered and recovered a hundred times here - direct taxes aren't within the remit of the EU.

regards,
Scofflaw

roosh

Scofflaw wrote: »

I thought those who are trying to get us to vote Yes asking us to hand over more power from them to someone else? Isn't that the main point of the No campaigns?

puzzled,
Scofflaw

Join the club, that is another reason why I would have to vote No.

Its actually the politicians of Europe that will garner the power, from what I can gather. The same politicians who are trying to get this treaty ratified with little concern for what way the people of Europe would actually vote.

The underhanded manner in which the EU has sought to ratify this treaty, is in itself probably the most damning indictment of it, becaue voting Yes vindicates the decision, not to give the people of Europe a say

Scofflaw

mangaroosh wrote: »

Join the club, that is another reason why I would have to vote No.

Its actually the politicians of Europe that will garner the power, from what I can gather. The same politicians who are trying to get this treaty ratified with little concern for what way the people of Europe would actually vote.

The underhanded manner in which the EU has sought to ratify this treaty, is in itself probably the most damning indictment of it, becaue voting Yes vindicates the decision, not to give the people of Europe a say

The EU doesn't ratify anything. The member states ratify - each one according to their own constitutional mechanisms, which the EU can neither dictate, nor override. We don't dictate the constitutional mechanisms in the other member states, and they don't dictate ours. Only Denmark and Ireland have legal triggers for referendums, which is why we've traditionally been the ones who use them. The other member states don't use them - and that's their choice, not the Eu's, and not ours. If you want other countries to use referendums, you should start a movement for the adoption of referendums. In the case of at least two countries (off the top of my head), you'll need to change their specific constitutional exclusion of referendums for ratificaiton.

As to "the politicians of Europe will garner the power" - what power? The power they already have? What's the point of that? If you mean that they move their own exercise of power to a less accountable place, that's exactly the opposite of what Lisbon does.


regards,
Scofflaw

roosh

Scofflaw wrote: »

Given FDI has a five-year lead time, that's not much of an argument. Like it or not, people are seeing this vote as defining Ireland's relationship with the EU.

Like it or not, that is just the bull**** being peddled to scare us into voting Yes. All businesses are going to base their decision to invest in Ireland based on the potential returns on investment as a primary concern. Our access to the European market will be unhindered by voting no and our corporation tax rate will remain what it is. Therefore there is no disincentive to invest in Ireland. We remain a low tax gateway to Europe

Scofflaw wrote: »

Lisbon doesn't "open the door" for harmonisation of direct taxes at all. That's been covered and recovered a hundred times here - direct taxes aren't within the remit of the EU.

regards,
Scofflaw

It is not secret that Tax harmonisation is favoured in the EU. The guarantees about our taxation in Lisbon are not legally binding until the next treaty after Lisbon. There doesn't necessarily have to be a treaty after Lisbon for a very long time.

The fact that the EU have tried to foist this treaty on the people offers me absolutely no reassurances about the EUs commitment to ensuring fair treatment of the people, not to mind when it comes to the corporation tax level of one minor member state

roosh

Scofflaw wrote: »

The EU doesn't ratify anything. The member states ratify - each one according to their own constitutional mechanisms, which the EU can neither dictate, nor override.

You'll surely excuse the blurring of the lines, but it doesn't change the fact that those governments ratified it without the consensus of the people. Vindicating that decision could set a dangerous precedent and ratifying Lisbon actually gives further authority for this to be done.

Scofflaw wrote: »

As to "the politicians of Europe will garner the power" - what power? The power they already have? What's the point of that? If you mean that they move their own exercise of power to a less accountable place, that's exactly the opposite of what Lisbon does.


regards,
Scofflaw

The power that they are seeking to increase, the power that they wish to exercise without any consideration for what the people of Europe actually want. I don't mean the move it to a less accountable place, rather that it gives them more scope to do exactly what they are trying to do with Lisbon, and that is pass legislation without the conensus of the people, because apparently the know what is best for us.