90.8% of independent economists feel that a YES is good for economy and FDI

professore

getz wrote: »

do i have evidence ? no i dont,but i know the EUs own fraud office has, paul van bruitenen who was the whistleblower who brought down the EU commision in 1999,is in charged of the EU anti fraud office[OLAF] has investigated the EU commision for regional policy ,and has confirmed through investigation that corruption has taken place over a number of years. also on november 19th the EU commision president josa manual barroso shamefully threatend the UK independance partys nigel farage with legal consequences for daring to reveal the shady past of EU commisions vice president jacques barrot[barrot recieved a suspended prision sentencefor his role in a political fund raising scandal in france]are these the kind of people who you want to have in control of your destiny ?

I for one would prefer our own politicians whose reputations are spotless .... oh wait ...

K-9

The Irish Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies and a big, big one, the IRISH TAXATION INSTITUTE can be added.

http://www.tax-news.com/asp/story/Irish_Accounting_Profession_Urges_Yes_On_Lisbon_xxxx38927.html

meglome

professore wrote: »

I for one would prefer our own politicians whose reputations are spotless .... oh wait ...

When I hear about loss of 'sovereignty' and 'independence' I think that maybe these people have different politicians to me.

K-9 wrote: »

The Irish Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies and a big, big one, the IRISH TAXATION INSTITUTE can be added.

http://www.tax-news.com/asp/story/Irish_Accounting_Profession_Urges_Yes_On_Lisbon_xxxx38927.html

Done.

alrightcuz

The world wars were a waste of time,,,,wouldn't it have been easier just to have given up all those years ago,,,, one currency,one government ,one military,one power ,,,, what was true then is true now its all about the money just look at who supports the yes campaign "thanks for the list by the way" you just made up my mind for me

ei.sdraob

alrightcuz wrote: »

The world wars were a waste of time,,,,wouldn't it have been easier just to have given up all those years ago,,,, one currency,one government ,one military,one power ,,,, what was true then is true now its all about the money just look at who supports the yes campaign "thanks for the list by the way" you just made up my mind for me

no one show him the NO list so

Sam Vimes

ei.sdraob wrote: »

no one show him the NO list so

ah but I have to

Which one of these organisations best represents your views and why alrightcuz:



· Sinn Fein
· Socialist Workers Party
· The Worker's Party of Ireland
· GUE/NGL group in the European Parliament
· Independence and Democracy group in the EU Parliament
· Libertas
· Coir/Youth Defence
· Irish Society for a Christian Civilisation
· éirígi
· People's Movement
· Irish Peace and Neutrality Alliance
· UNITE The Union
· Campaign Against the European Constitution
· Comhlámh (NGO)
· Communist Party of Ireland
· Community & Workers Action Group
· Irish Anti-War Movement
· Irish Republican Socialist Party
· Irish Socialist Network
· People Before Profit
· Socialist Party
· 32 CSM
· Workers Solidarity Movement.
· ATTAC
· AFRI
· Technical Engineering and Electrical Union
· Independent Workers Union

MrMatisse

It should be pointed out that some people who do not agree or are members of the above organisations will also be voting no.

It has the element of the schoolyard about it really......Look all the cool kids are doing it vote yes.

Sam Vimes

Really-Stressed wrote: »

It should be pointed out that some people who do not agree or are members of the above organisations will also be voting no.

It has the element of the schoolyard about it really......Look all the cool kids are doing it vote yes.

I suppose it does in a way. I wouldn't say it's "all the cool kids", I'd hardly call most of them cool, it's more that the normal and cool kids are voting yes and only that kid who sticks his finger up his arse and smells it the whole time isn't.

MrMatisse

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I suppose it does in a way. I wouldn't say it's "all the cool kids", I'd hardly call most of them cool, it's more that the normal and cool kids are voting yes and only that kid who sticks his finger up his arse and smells it the whole time isn't.

Great counter argument.

Sam Vimes

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Great counter argument.

I wouldn't call it a counter argument, I'm mostly agreeing with you but putting the analogy in the correct context. You see when most people are presented with irrefutable proof that legally binding guarantees are legally binding they accept it because the proof is irrefutable. But for some people this is not enough because they really really really want to believe the opposite and will not change their position no matter how thoroughly they are proved wrong. Refusing to side with someone who is completely unwilling to accept reality is not simply "going with the cool kids"

MrMatisse

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I wouldn't call it a counter argument, I'm mostly agreeing with you but putting the analogy in the correct context. You see when most people are presented with irrefutable proof that legally binding guarantees are legally binding they accept it because the proof is irrefutable. But for some people this is not enough because they really really really want to believe the opposite and will not change their position no matter how thoroughly they are proved wrong. Refusing to side with someone who is completely unwilling to accept reality is not simply "going with the cool kids"

The reality of what the treaty is about is the subject of the debate.

Is this a step towards a federal europe or not.

If it is it should be admitted as such and the many valid reasons for forming such an alliance should be debated.

What i dont like is that they say it isnt what this treaty is about which i beleive it is. Which is dishonest and not the basis on which to build such an alliance.

It is also a rehash of another document that was rejected by the fench and the dutch which was altered to ensure it isnt require a vote as per the article in my sig.

I feel that the whole process around the ratification of this treaty has been undemocratic and thats why im voting no.

Even in the face of schoolyard chants.

Sam Vimes

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Is this a step towards a federal europe or not.

It brings more European integration but that does not mean that a federal Europe is inevitable. If I drink 20 pints I'll get alcohol poisoning but that doesn't mean I shouldn't drink at all. Driving at 150km/h would get me killed but that doesn't mean I should trundle along at 5km/h. I would not like a federal Europe but this is not a federal Europe. Somewhere in between total isolation and total integration lies a configuration that carries the most benefit.

People often argue that cannabis should be illegal because it's a "gateway drug", because it "leads to more". I always respond that something should be illegal if it is bad, not because in your opinion it could possibly lead to something bad. It's a slippery slope fallacy:

A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1]

Taking this step does not bring in a federal Europe. A future step might attempt to but we can deal with that step if and when it arrives and I will vote no to it right along with you. We haven't given up our right to referendums. you should be voting on the contents of this treaty, not on a future treaty that you think might be on the way

Really-Stressed wrote: »

What i dont like is that they say it isnt what this treaty is about which i beleive it is. Which is dishonest and not the basis on which to build such an alliance.

It's only dishonest if you assume that that is indeed what the treaty is about. If it's not, then they're not being dishonest. You seem to forget that people from each of the member state were involved in writing this treaty. There are federalists in the EU but most countries don't want a federal Europe any more than we do, and yet they negotiated and ratified this treaty, I would say because it doesn't create a federal Europe, as the German supreme court ruled

Really-Stressed wrote: »

It is also a rehash of another document that was rejected by the fench and the dutch which was altered to ensure it isnt require a vote as per the article in my sig.

There is nothing in the French and Dutch constitutions to require a referendum and they are now illegal in the Netherlands. You talk about this treaty creating a federal Europe but you seem to miss that most of the changes made to the constitution were made because the French and the Dutch thought it came too close to a federal Europe. They changed it to address exactly the problem you have and you dismiss these changes as "rehashing"

Really-Stressed wrote: »

I feel that the whole process around the ratification of this treaty has been undemocratic and thats why im voting no.

It's possible that they did make changes to avoid referendums but to be honest I'd have done the same. Not because the treaty is bad, because the same thing would happen there as happened here. Liars and extremists would spread their lies and people would reject it out of fear. That's why other countries aren't having referendums, because a complex document full of legal language designed to define how 27 member nations interact is difficult to make an informed decision on and Betty from Mayo doesn't have the time, the inclination of the expertise to make an informed decision on it. Issues like this are why we vote in governments who employ experts. And the fact that the treaty is so long and complex makes it very easy to make up all manner of crap about it and very difficult to refute it so benign and beneficial treaties get voted down because of extremists with ulterior motives fooling people. It's the reason referendums are illegal in Germany and the Netherlands.

Honestly, after the farce that these two referendums have been with the multitude of lies goind around, I have lost all faith in referendums as a democratic tool. They're fine for issues like divorce and abortion that are a matter of opinion but not complex legal documents. I would much prefer the system used in the rest of Europe and most of the world whereby treaties are one of the multitude of things our elected representatives and their employed experts decide on

MrMatisse

they negotiated and ratified this treaty, I would say because it doesn't create a federal Europe, as teh German supreme court ruled


They (meaning the people of those countries) were not given a choice. When they had a choice (france,holland) they said NO.

Sam Vimes

Really-Stressed wrote: »

they negotiated and ratified this treaty, I would say because it doesn't create a federal Europe, as teh German supreme court ruled


They (meaning the people of those countries) were not given a choice. When they had a choice (france,holland) they said NO.

They meaning the representatives of every country in the union. We had representatives there just like everyone else did.

And yes the French and the Dutch said no, told their governments which parts they objected to, those parts were removed, they voted in Sarkosy who openly said he would ratify the treaty if he got elected and there are a distinct lack of nationwide protests demanding he go back on that. And if anyone's going to have a protest it's the French

MrMatisse

Sam Vimes wrote: »

They meaning the representatives of every country in the union. We had representatives there just like everyone else did.

And yes the French and the Dutch said no, told their governments which parts they objected to, those parts were removed, they voted in Sarkosy who openly said he would ratify the treaty if he got elected and there are a distinct lack of nationwide protests demanding he go back on that. And if anyone's going to have a protest it's the French

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1435550/Giscards-federal-ruse-to-protect-Blair.html

marco_polo

Really-Stressed wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1435550/Giscards-federal-ruse-to-protect-Blair.html

That article is about the text of the EU constitution dated from 2003.

MrMatisse

marco_polo wrote: »

That article is about the text of the EU constitution dated from 2003.

Still ,an interesting one for those who totally deny this treaty ,is about setting up a federal europe when both articles are read in conjunction with each other.

Sam Vimes

Really-Stressed wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1435550/Giscards-federal-ruse-to-protect-Blair.html

I wish people would stop quoting that guy. Yes he is a federalist but he is not the God of the EU. You can read the treaty yourself and see that it does not create a federal Europe, as the German supreme court did. And anyway, all I'm seeing in that article is that the word could have been taken the wrong way and so was changed to stop certain groups from latching onto it and claiming that the treaty created a federal Europe when it actually doesn't. It seems not to have worked.

It was mostly things like that that were removed from the constitution to make it the Lisbon treaty. The French and the Dutch didn't voice an objection to the procedures but objected to all the state-like and federal-like language

marco_polo

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Still ,an interesting one for those who totally deny this treaty ,is about setting up a federal europe when both articles are read in conjunction with each other.

Not really since by reading the treaty it is clearly nothing of the sort, and the German constitutional court also seems to hold the same opinion.

Have you any interesting quotes from the 106 other delegates who were involved in drafting the text?

MrMatisse

marco_polo wrote: »

Not really since by reading the treaty it is clearly nothing of the sort, and the German constitutional court also seems to hold the same opinion.

Have you any interesting quotes from the 106 other delegates who were involved in drafting the text?

Nope.
Nor the 400 million that were not allowed to vote on it.

meglome

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Still ,an interesting one for those who totally deny this treaty ,is about setting up a federal europe when both articles are read in conjunction with each other.

Not interesting, the German constitutional court found there was nothing federalist in the Lisbon treaty.

MrMatisse

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I wish people would stop quoting that guy. Yes he is a federalist but he is not the God of the EU. You can read the treaty yourself and see that it does not create a federal Europe, as the German supreme court did. And anyway, all I'm seeing in that article is that the word could have been taken the wrong way and so was changed to stop certain groups from latching onto it and claiming that the treaty created a federal Europe when it actually doesn't. It seems not to have worked.

It was mostly things like that that were removed from the constitution to make it the Lisbon treaty. The French and the Dutch didn't voice an objection to the procedures but objected to all the state-like and federal-like language

I think they were worried about the meaning of the words not the use of them.

MrMatisse

meglome wrote: »

Not interesting, the German constitutional court found there was nothing federalist in the Lisbon treaty.

It is interesting when that guy was one of the main architects of the treaty.

Luckliy this time the word federal has been removed so a court in germany has said its now ok.

Sam Vimes

Really-Stressed wrote: »

I think they were worried about the meaning of the words not the use of them.

Really-Stressed wrote: »

It is interesting when that guy was one of the main architects of the treaty.

No he was one of the main architects of the constitution. That word and many many other words were taken out which made the treaty different in both meaning and application

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Luckliy this time the word federal has been removed so a court in germany has said its now ok.

Do you really think the German supreme court are that thick?

MrMatisse

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No he was one of the main architects of the constitution. That word and many many other words were taken out which made the treaty different in both meaning and application


Do you really think the German supreme court are that thick?

Im not familiar with the german supreme court.

Sam Vimes

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Im not familiar with the german supreme court.

Right but I think it's safe to assume that they're somewhat competent at their job and that they wouldn't be fooled by the removal of a few words no?

Would you think they're more reliable than an article from 2003 about a document that doesn't exist anymore and one EU federalist's opinion? The socialists say this treaty is too right wing and the fascists say its too left wing. People read into it what they want

MrMatisse

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Right but I think it's safe to assume that they're somewhat competent at their job and that they wouldn't be fooled by the removal of a few words no?

Would you think they're more reliable than an article from 2003 about a document that doesn't exist anymore and one EU federalist's opinion? The socialists say this treaty is too right wing and the fascists say its too left wing. People read into it what they want

With the words removed they can do nothing.

some people even read into it that its good for democracy.

bonkey

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I suppose it does in a way. I wouldn't say it's "all the cool kids", I'd hardly call most of them cool, it's more that the normal and cool kids are voting yes and only that kid who sticks his finger up his arse and smells it the whole time isn't.

There's no call for being nasty.

vanla sighs

And 9 out of 10 cats prefer Whiskas........so what. We have seen time and again the errors made by economists, we are supposed to trust them now. I notice they didn't address the actual FACT that the Irish people have already rejected Lisbon.......the Irish people are being asked to vote on the VERY SAME TREATY. Btw,how come FDI into Ireland actually increased by 5% since our first rejection of Lisbon if a rejection is oh so bad for the economy? Lisbon is not about jobs, growth, recovery or any other part of the economy....unless you factor Brussels jobs for Irish politicans.

Dinner

Which particular articles in Lisbon will lead us to 'poverty and slavery'?

Or is it too much to have expected you to know what you're talking about?