NOW IS THE TIME, FOR ALL GOOD MEN AND WOMEN, TO COME TO THE AID OF THEIR COUNTRY!

worldclass

Did I seriously just read a whole load of nonsense from Jim Corr? Tell me this is some sort of joke.. :eek:

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

seamus

Jim Corr wrote: »

GUARANTEES: Our so-called 'guarantees' are not written into the bill to amend the Constitution. Denmark's stronger protocols
after their Maastricht no vote have since been overruled and nullified
by the European Court of Justice, so our 'Guarantees' are literally not worth the paper they're written on, as many people have been at pains to point out.

This is complete nonsense. They are as legally binding as any previous international agreement, such as the Good Friday Agreement. If you believe that these guarantees aren't binding, then you also believe that the GFA has never been binding either.

Article 48: The self-amending clause or escalator clause. Allows the
EU to escalate it's power into new areas WITHOUT coming back to the
People for a vote on any changes. So what we have in fact is a treaty
that is not set in stone, unlike our own constitution. It is a
flexible treaty, free to be amended by the EU elite as they wish. This
leaves our country and the other individual member states extremely
vulnerable! Would you sign a contract on a deal with someone who could
legally adjust that contract to favour themselves AFTER you'd signed
It?

This is facetious at best. Changes require the approval of each country's parliament. It doesn't give Europe carte blanche to rewrite the treaty.

Article 2 ECFR: Under Lisbon, The European Charter of Fundamental
Rights AND the European Charter of Human Rights become legally
binding. Both of those charters are intertwined and will merge.
Article 2 ECFR "Nobody shall be condemned to death, everybody has a
right to life".
Article 2 protocol 6 of the ECHR that will merge with the ECFR, "A state may make provision for the death penalty in times of war or imminent threat of war". There you have a 'backdoor' whereby the main article can be diluted or negated entirely, and this is typical of the deception we will find upon study of the treaty and it's additional charters. Who's to say we are under threat of war, could we trust Tony Blair, who led his nation into war under false pretences and who is in the running to be SELECTED, not elected, as the president of the EU? What then for our rights under Article 2 protocol 6 of the CFR?

Source?Who says that the ECHR will be overwritten with the contents of the ECFR?

Another clause allows for lethal force to be used in times of rioting or upheaval.

Source?

As was stated by our own Charlie McCreevy: 95% of Europeans would vote No to this treaty if given the chance.

Deliberate misquote out of context.

We gave the EU 200 Billion Euro worth of our fishing stock.

Calculations? Source?

Now the farming industry is under attack, our farmers are
being forced, because of EU law, to sell milk cheaper than cost price,
while at the same time becoming increasingly crippled by the weight of
EU bureaucracy.

So CAP hasn't been good to Irish farmers? We don't have thousands of acres of land making money for farmers who are being paid to leave it alone?

With this pattern in mind, would you trust the EU with the Irish economy?

Yep, I sure would.
Unemployment rates as at March 2009
United Kingdom|6.6
Germany|7.6
France|8.8
Ireland|10.6

Is it democracy to keep coming back to the people with the same treaty that we've already voted on?

Yep.

Is it democracy to refuse the majority of citizens in the member states a referendum on something so crucially important to their futures and the futures of their children's children?

Yep, if that's how they've structured their democracy.

Was it democracy for other states to ratify the treaty, against the wishes of the vast majority of their own people, even though We the People of Ireland had already voted this treaty down?

Yes, because it didn't bring the treaty into force.

Answer me this Jim: Is it democracy to force your wishes of an EU-wide referendum onto countries whose democracies do not require (and in some case have made illegal) the act of referendum?

With Lisbon's population based voting system, it'll mean that when Turkey joins, by 2020, it’ll be the most powerful country in the EU. Think about the economic, social and military consequences of that happening...

Fearmongering. Having a large population doesn't give Turkey any ability to overrule everyone else. That's not how the treaty handles the union. All of the biggest nations put together can still be "vetoed" on issues by a small minority of small countries. And the likelihood of Turkey acceeding before 2020 is quite small. 2021 is the most optimistic estimate. They have a lot of work to do.

800 years of Tyranny, 100 years of constant uprisings and finally, in 1922,
We gained our independence. Would you be comfortable throwing this all away?

Ignoring the "800" crap, you have failed to outline at all, how our independence would be in any way affected by Lisbon.

OldJay

Jim Corr wrote: »

800 years of Tyranny, 100 years of constant uprisings and finally, in 1922, We gained our independence. Would you be comfortable throwing this all away?

You don't even know your history, fella.
What year did Ireland leave the British Commonwealth? I'll give you a clue: You're not even close.

Wook

Thank you Seamus

Euro_Kraut

DeVore wrote: »

Give the man a chance, he posted it at 23:10 last night, its now 07:45.

He posted it the night before last.

ei.sdraob

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

He posted it the night before last.

and he posted exact same tripe elsewhere



edit: Euro_Kraut! thats a great idea for sig!!

seamus

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

He posted it the night before last.

To be fair, it was only moved here last night. I'd give him 12 hours to reply before writing him off.

zenno

Jumpy wrote: »

The actual figures have been posted here a bazillion times (actually maybe five or six times, but did you see what I did there?)

ok a bazillion times = five or six times. i'll remember that in my next mathematics exam. nope i didn't see what you did there. michael o' leary is at it again here we go.

P. Breathnach

DeVore wrote: »

Give the man a chance, he posted it at 23:10 last night, its now 07:45.

There are questions to be answered yes, but people sleep too.

DeV, I have €100 here that says the post is a hit & run. Do you have €100 that says otherwise?

Jumpy

zenno wrote: »

ok a bazillion times = five or six times. i'll remember that in my next mathematics exam. nope i didn't see what you did there. michael o' leary is at it again here we go.

200 Billion = grossly exaggerated.

bonkey

The following have no place in this thread:

- Comments questioning the merit of this thread. Report the thing if you have a problem.
- Comments about Jim Corr himself. Attack the post, not the poster.
- Insinuations about No voters in general. Again, attack the post, not the poster.

Either discuss the post that Mr. Corr made, or take it elsewhere.

moogester

About the Irish fishing industry - here's an article from the Irish Times (March '09)

Call for 'Irish-caught' label to protect local fishing industry

IRISH-CAUGHT seafood must be labelled as such to protect the marine industry, the Irish Fishermen’s Organisation (IFO) has said.

Minister of State for Fisheries Tony Killeen must also move to “decriminalise” fishermen if the indigenous industry is to offer a viable economic alternative in the current recession, the IFO has said.

“Irish consumers have a right to choice and to buy Irish fish where possible in order to protect our industry,” said IFO representative Caitlín Uí Aodha, one of the State’s first female skippers to qualify several decades ago.

“The amount of fish now being imported through our airports is almost as big as the catch Irish boats are landing. We believe that most Irish consumers would be glad to purchase Irish fish if given the choice through proper labeling,” she has said.

The Irish fishing industry “has, over the last 36 years, been very poorly served by Irish governments and Europe,” she said, and it was time that administrative sanctions, as favoured by the EU, were initiated by the Government.

The current system of criminal sanctions was tightened by former minister for the marine Noel Dempsey.

“It is a known fact that most fish landed in La Coruna in Spain is taken from Irish waters with little or no inspections taking place, as the number of Spanish fishery officers is minimal. This compares to almost one fishery officer per boat in Ireland.

“EU member states have taken up to €200 billion worth of fish from Irish waters since accession,” Ms Uí Aodha said.

“We get only 4 per cent of Europe’s quota in our own waters while countries like France are allowed to take six to seven times that amount in quota.

We now face further restrictive regulations from Europe in the guise of cod protection as they try to find ingenious ways of closing our fisheries down,” she said.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0320/1224243121561.html

Sam Vimes

moogester wrote: »

About the Irish fishing industry - here's an article from the Irish Times (March '09)

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0320/1224243121561.html

“EU member states have taken up to €200 billion worth of fish from Irish waters since accession,” Ms Uí Aodha said.

Ms Uí Aodha is wrong. The total value taken from Irish waters since 1973 is €8.5 billion, which includes our own catch

Mr Man

DeVore wrote: »

Sorry for the confusion with the red name, it just means that we have verified his identity and put him in the "campaigner" usergroup, which unfortunately was based on the Com Rep usergroup and inherited their name. Previously we had deleted his post on the basis that we thought someone was impersonating him, this time we have verified this is Jim Corr.

DeV.

The real Jim Corr is utterly beyond parody.

Hitman Actual

zenno wrote: »

ok a bazillion times = five or six times. i'll remember that in my next mathematics exam. nope i didn't see what you did there. michael o' leary is at it again here we go.

Here you go. What I find interesting about the value of Irish fisheries is that it is actually more valuable since we joined the EC in '73. Probably something to do with the fact that as the country was more prosperous due to EU membership, more aid (a lot of it EU money) was available to Irish fisheries and we have a hugely increased market.

BTW, the origin of that €200Billion figure is from a guy called Tom Prenderville, who has ties with the conservative catholic group Hibernian. He's the guy who put out that poll last week which showed the No side ahead by 59% to 41%. (The laughable thing about his poll was that it was taken amongst his ultra-conservative catholic friends.) To be quite blunt, Prenderville is FOS.

thebigcheese22

This is bizarre...

turgon

Once again we have the same tripe from the No side that we have had to endure for the last few months. For some reason Jim Corr has a pre-disposition to the No side and to support this he is making up lies. If Jim was voting No solely on the basis of what he said in his OP, his fears could be put to rest because the OP is a series of lies, and he could happily vote Yes. However Jim doesnt want to vote Yes. Even if all the reasons in the world to vote No are discredited Jim will still vote No. Because Jim wants to vote No for reasons unrelated to the Treaty. Maybe theres an agenda, or maybe he wants to be anti-establishment. I dont know. I think its highly disappointing that humans in the 21st century act in such an illogical way.

bonkey

turgon wrote: »

to support this he is making up lies.

The charter is clear regarding attacking the poster, and allegations of lying.

Saying the points are incorrect or untrue is one thing. Saying they are lies deliberately fabricated by the OP is another.

PopeBuckfastXVI

This is a falsehood:

GUARANTEES: Our so-called 'guarantees' are not written into the bill to amend the Constitution. Denmark's stronger protocols
after their Maastricht no vote have since been overruled and nullified
by the European Court of Justice, so our 'Guarantees' are literally not worth the paper they're written on, as many people have been at pains to point out.

Without making assumptions about the OP's willingness or ability to do research, either:
The OP is aware it is a falsehood, and repeats it anyway, in which case the falsehood is a lie.
The OP is unaware it is a falsehood, and is repeating it uncritically, making the original post, absent of discussion by the OP, yet another run-and-gun unresearched blog piece, without any particular merit.

Could the OP please either retract this, or provide the Cases where the ECJ overruled the Maastricht protocols?

bonkey

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

This is a falsehood:

Could someone humour me and explain the details behind this claim?

Would Mr. Corr (or anyone supporting him) like to supply the specifics of what was overruled and nullified, and when, that we can look at the details?

it is, after all, impossible to prove a negative. PopeBuckFaskXVI cannot show that there has never been a nullification or overruling. The claim that there has been such events, however, should be easily supportable by evidence.

My name is URL

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

This is a falsehood:



Without making assumptions about the OP's willingness or ability to do research, either:
The OP is aware it is a falsehood, and repeats it anyway, in which case the falsehood is a lie.
The OP is unaware it is a falsehood, and is repeating it uncritically, making the original post, absent of discussion by the OP, yet another run-and-gun unresearched blog piece, without any particular merit.

Could the OP please either retract this, or provide the Cases where the ECJ overruled the Maastricht protocols?

Did our 'Guarantees' exist the first time round?

Bearing in mind that nothing in the treaty has being changed this time, couldn't it be said that they are in fact worthless?

Sam Vimes

My name is URL wrote: »

Did our 'Guarantees' exist the first time round? Bearing in mind that nothing in the treaty has being changed this time, couldn't it be said that they are in fact worthless?

Hypothetical situation:

1. I present you with a contract
2. Someone comes along and tells you that this contract entitles me to your first born son and gives a quote from the contract that appears superficially convincing
3. I swear before the supreme court that the quoted passage does not entitle me to your first born and that it has been misinterpreted

Now:

1. Should I have to change the contract considering it never actually entitled me to your first born and was simply misinterpreted?
2. Is my oath before the supreme court "worthless" or is it meant to settle your fears and allow you to accept the contract now that you know for certain that you will not have to give me your first born?

PopeBuckfastXVI

My name is URL wrote: »

Did our 'Guarantees' exist the first time round?

Bearing in mind that nothing in the treaty has being changed this time, couldn't it be said that they are in fact worthless?

They are in one sense worthless if you didn't believe the things they are guaranteeing aren't in the treaty were in there in the first place. So you could say they are worthless to me, in that sense.

They are worth a lot if you did believe these things were in the treaty. Which means they are also worth something to me if it changes someone's vote from 'No' to 'Yes'.

Perhaps you'd like to address the falsehood about the Maastricht protocols?

Run_to_da_hills

Thumbs up from Run_tp_da_hills.

My name is URL

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Hypothetical situation:

1. I present you with a contract
2. Someone comes along and tells you that this contract entitles me to your first born son and gives a quote from the contract that appears superficially convincing
3. I swear before the supreme court that the quoted passage does not entitle me to your first born and that it has been misinterpreted

Now:

1. Should I have to change the contract considering it never actually entitled me to your first born and was simply misinterpreted?
2. Is my oath before the supreme court "worthless" or is it meant to settle your fears and allow you to accept the contract now that you know for certain that you will not have to give me your first born?

The word 'guarantee' explicitly means just that, the fact is that no legally binding guarantees exist within the treaty regarding the issues that the so called 'guarantees for the Irish' refer to. It's misleading to call the clarifications made guarantees, imo

Mr Man

bonkey wrote: »

The following have no place in this thread:

- Comments about Jim Corr himself. Attack the post, not the poster.

Either discuss the post that Mr. Corr made, or take it elsewhere.

Why so? Jim Corr is posting as Jim Corr. He is a national figure who has been on the airwaves many times. Therefore everything he has said outside is also relevant. If someone had started a thread about something JC had said, then people would have had a lot to say about him and I doubt mods would have anything to say about it. Does the fact that JC started the thread exclude that?

Sam Vimes

My name is URL wrote: »

The word 'guarantee' explicitly means just that, the fact is that no legally binding guarantees exist within the treaty regarding the issues that the so called 'guarantees for the Irish' refer to.

And my oath before the supreme court doesn't exist within the contract. Does that make it any less of an oath?

Fuhrer

Jim Corr wrote: »

Article 48: The self-amending clause or escalator clause. Allows the
EU to escalate it's power into new areas WITHOUT coming back to the
People for a vote on any changes. So what we have in fact is a treaty
that is not set in stone, unlike our own constitution. It is a
flexible treaty, free to be amended by the EU elite as they wish. This
leaves our country and the other individual member states extremely
vulnerable! Would you sign a contract on a deal with someone who could
legally adjust that contract to favour themselves AFTER you'd signed
It?

Im obviously not as clued on on this as you but...


Arent the EU elite elected by the people to represent them in matters such as making changes and such?

PopeBuckfastXVI

My name is URL wrote: »

The word 'guarantee' explicitly means just that, the fact is that no legally binding guarantees exist within the treaty regarding the issues that the so called 'guarantees for the Irish' refer to. It's misleading to call the clarifications made guarantees, imo

The legally binding nature of the guarantee is that it is lodged under the vienna conventions with the UN as an international treaty.

It's misleading to say that 'no legally binding guarantees exist'.