Proponents of the No vote

EU RULES

My good friend Tommy O'Brien posted this on Politics.ie

The No side is endorsed by
- A right wing group of nuts in Cóir
- Rejected politicians Patricia McKenna, Mary Lou McDonald and Declan Ganley
- Conspiracy theorists like Jim Corr
- Extremist so-called republicans like Republican Sinn Féin
- Anthony Coughlan (who has been proven wrong about every treaty)
- The Socialist Workers Party and its cover groups

Come on this is obvious. If you have a real care for Ireland and not some false romantic insane nationalism(like some do on here) then you will vote yes to Lisbon. I am voting yes as a proud Irishman and European.

I mean look at Future Taoiseach for instance. The guy is living in his own little world, 'viva la republique' indeed.

The Volt

UKIP to top it all off

meglome

Voltwad wrote: »

UKIP to top it all off

I think we can add the Polish Bloggers to that as well.

The Volt

meglome wrote: »

I think we can add the Polish Bloggers to that as well.

Ploggers?

Elmo

The No side is endorsed by
- A right wing group of nuts in Cóir
- Rejected politicians Patricia McKenna, Mary Lou McDonald and Declan Ganley
- Conspiracy theorists like Jim Corr
- Extremist so-called republicans like Republican Sinn Féin
- Anthony Coughlan (who has been proven wrong about every treaty)
- The Socialist Workers Party and its cover groups

- I agree with them on some issues, but very few TBH
- Patricia McKenna was an MEP plenty of rejected Politican's advocating a Yes vote and lets face it the current government are basically rejected in the next election.
- Jim Corr is a fantastic musician
- Yes side is supported by The Real Republican Party FF.
- A group of people who seem to like nothing better than pointing out the flaws in the oppoinents of the Lisbon Treaty without looking at the people who are in favour of it.
- The banks and the Developers and its cover group (who needs many when you can have one) AKA FF.

Plotician

It says something when your asked to cast your vote based on who's supporting one side or the other - what happened to 'read the treaty'.

This whole saga is now like a Curry's ad selling the latest wide-screen TV. It's as if the Irish have been conditioned to a soft sell and are easily bought. It's got great resolution, the sound is fantastic, watch all your films in brilliant colour.

Just like our 'debate' Curry's wouldn't be telling you about the power consumption if it was in any way a negative.

Whether a yes or a no is the right answer we've looked like a complete bunch of d---heads in this whole episode.

The process needs a review once this one is out of the way.

(as a subnote - not a great fan of DG, but unless the latest allegations are proven correct then subversion is now also part of the game from our elected representatives).

Elmo

Plotician wrote: »

subversion is now also part of the game from our elected representatives.

Did you not see GE 2002 and 2007 subversion is their middle name.

Some_Person

EU RULES wrote: »

- Conspiracy theorists like Jim Corr

What did he say that is supposed to be a conspiracy theory?

roosh

EU RULES wrote: »

My good friend Tommy O'Brien posted this on Politics.ie



Come on this is obvious. If you have a real care for Ireland and not some false romantic insane nationalism(like some do on here) then you will vote yes to Lisbon. I am voting yes as a proud Irishman and European.

I mean look at Future Taoiseach for instance. The guy is living in his own little world, 'viva la republique' indeed.

This is the danger.

None of those parties are looking for the keys to the kingdom that is Europe. Honestly, do not base your vote on your disdain for any of those parties/organisations, they will not have any more power if we vote No.

Just as people should not vote No because they dislike Fianna Fáil. This isn't about any of the individual parties, this is about the decision making power we are willing to give to the politicians of Europe, and how much of a say we want to retain.

Just think about the irony of the whole thing. On the one hand we are being told that we are going to see a more open, more honest and more transparent EU, but not until after we ratify Lisbon. Basically, those people who are trying to sneak this treaty through are promising there will be more transparency, but only after Lisbon.

The funny thing is that if we ratify Lisbon, then there will indeed be more trnasparency, except that it will be in the form of a big glass window with us looking in, and having no meaningful say in how things are run. They try and tell us that national parliaments will have more say in what goes on, but that say will only be relative to our voting rights, which seriously favour the Franco-German alliance.

We are also told that we can propose new legislation, so long as we get 1million signatures. What they don't tell us is that they are under no obligation to give it any serious consideration. Which is probably a good thing, because we will have every crackpot and looney around the place trying to gather a million signatures.

Basically, what the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty will do, is create a little bubble in the EU, where the politicians can decide on matters that concern us, without actually having to put things to referendum. We saw that this is the case in every country except for Ireland. The thing about Lisbon, is that it removes the need for referenda in this country by giving the politicians the power to amend existing treaties. Then, only on matters that affect our constitution will there be the need for a referendum, and the amending of a treaty that we have already accepted will arguably not require one.

This really is an ingenious piece of legislation, that actually does flip the EU on its head. Instead of the peolpe having the final say, the politicians do. We are the only barrier to this, and Lisbon removes that. Just imagine, all the future legislation of the EU will be ratified in the same manner it was in other countries, by not giving the people a say. The Dutch and the French proved a fly in the ointment until they changed the wording of the EU Constitution and therby removed the need for a referendum, but keeping pretty much the same functionality.


Just think, we will have an increase in the militarisation of Europe, being driven by the arms industry, and the politicians in the EU will, after Lisbon, have the power to react to a "threat of war" - remember the reason the US and britain invaded Iraq? It was a threat of terrorism, but was actually called a war. So here we have all these new shiny weapons, and he arms industry quickly reaching saturation point in the market. How does one create new demand for weapons? By having to replace ones that have been used.

ei.sdraob

Some_Person wrote: »

What did he say that is supposed to be a conspiracy theory?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPfszpqq2o4

3:18 in



the guy is a nutcase :eek:

Elmo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPfszpqq2o4

3:18 in



the guy is a nutcase :eek:

These guys are even more insane: -

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0928/breaking79.htm
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/coughlan-says-fas-law-contained-basis-for-payoff-1898493.html

Everyday and they can't even sing

roosh

ei.sdraob wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPfszpqq2o4

3:18 in



the guy is a nutcase :eek:

ya, he's suggesting that this is some kind of plan that is being implemented worldwide, it isn't, this is human nature. It seems like a good idea, for the politicians to centralise decision making power, as it will be more efficient - so they do it. It seems like a good idea not to put decisions to referenda, because they take time, and the people won't necessarily understand - so they do that.

This is kind of why history has a a habit of repeating itself. Look at the history of the world and notice the rise and fall of various empires, all taking on different guises.

This isn't some covert plan, there is no end goal in sight, this seems like the logical next step. The question is, what is the next logical step after that. If you believe in Logic, then you will be able to at least, make an estimation.

The question is, do you believe in logic

Plotician

Anyone suggesting a recession was on the way 18 months ago was also a nutcase.

Who's to say if he is right or wrong, the best evidence is usually history.

ei.sdraob

mangaroosh wrote: »

ya, he's suggesting that this is some kind of plan that is being implemented worldwide, it isn't, this is human nature. It seems like a good idea, for the politicians to centralise decision making power, as it will be more efficient - so they do it. It seems like a good idea not to put decisions to referenda, because they take time, and the people won't necessarily understand - so they do that.

This is kind of why history has a a habit of repeating itself. Look at the history of the world and notice the rise and fall of various empires, all taking on different guises.

This isn't some covert plan, there is no end goal in sight, this seems like the logical next step. The question is, what is the next logical step after that. If you believe in Logic, then you will be able to at least make an estimation.

ah ffs, they are crawling out of woodwork now

dude conspiracy theories forum is this way

:mad:

Elmo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

ah ffs, they are crawling out of woodwork now

dude conspiracy theories forum is this way

:mad:

what you mean these guys?

http://www.fiannafail.ie/
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Some_Person

The NWO isn't a conspiracy, Obama and Gordon Brown themselves have talked it.

Elmo

Some_Person wrote: »

The NWO isn't a conspiracy, Obama and Gordon Brown themselves have talked it.

I would be surprised if the Brown/Obama scriptwriters think its the new buzz word that will make their employers look good.

ei.sdraob

Elmo wrote: »

what you mean these guys?

http://www.fiannafail.ie/

Please while you at it take FF with you to the asylum



edit: thread reported. this is not a conspiracy theories forum but politics, keep your tinfoil hats on and don't get your lead panties in a twist gentlemen

/

marco_polo

mangaroosh wrote: »

This is the danger.

None of those parties are looking for the keys to the kingdom that is Europe. Honestly, do not base your vote on your disdain for any of those parties/organisations, they will not have any more power if we vote No.

Just as people should not vote No because they dislike Fianna Fáil. This isn't about any of the individual parties, this is about the decision making power we are willing to give to the politicians of Europe, and how much of a say we want to retain.

Just think about the irony of the whole thing. On the one hand we are being told that we are going to see a more open, more honest and more transparent EU, but not until after we ratify Lisbon. Basically, those people who are trying to sneak this treaty through are promising there will be more transparency, but only after Lisbon.

The funny thing is that if we ratify Lisbon, then there will indeed be more trnasparency, except that it will be in the form of a big glass window with us looking in, and having no meaningful say in how things are run. They try and tell us that national parliaments will have more say in what goes on, but that say will only be relative to our voting rights, which seriously favour the Franco-German alliance.

We are also told that we can propose new legislation, so long as we get 1million signatures. What they don't tell us is that they are under no obligation to give it any serious consideration. Which is probably a good thing, because we will have every crackpot and looney around the place trying to gather a million signatures.

Basically, what the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty will do, is create a little bubble in the EU, where the politicians can decide on matters that concern us, without actually having to put things to referendum. We saw that this is the case in every country except for Ireland. The thing about Lisbon, is that it removes the need for referenda in this country by giving the politicians the power to amend existing treaties. Then, only on matters that affect our constitution will there be the need for a referendum, and the amending of a treaty that we have already accepted will arguably not require one.

This really is an ingenious piece of legislation, that actually does flip the EU on its head. Instead of the peolpe having the final say, the politicians do. We are the only barrier to this, and Lisbon removes that. Just imagine, all the future legislation of the EU will be ratified in the same manner it was in other countries, by not giving the people a say. The Dutch and the French proved a fly in the ointment until they changed the wording of the EU Constitution and therby removed the need for a referendum, but keeping pretty much the same functionality.


Just think, we will have an increase in the militarisation of Europe, being driven by the arms industry, and the politicians in the EU will, after Lisbon, have the power to react to a "threat of war" - remember the reason the US and britain invaded Iraq? It was a threat of terrorism, but was actually called a war. So here we have all these new shiny weapons, and he arms industry quickly reaching saturation point in the market. How does one create new demand for weapons? By having to replace ones that have been used.

I would be very interested to hear which constitutional provisions in French or Dutch Law the rewording Lisbon Treaty was able to bypass?

Any future amendments to the treaty that would require a referendum will be subject to a referendum. This will include any amendments that may increase the competencies of the EU. It is pretty simple really.

How does a treaty get amended?
With an amending treaty.

What is Lisbon?
An amending treaty.

What are we having now?
A referedendum.

What will happen for a future amending treaty?
A referedendum.

roosh

ei.sdraob wrote: »

ah ffs, they are crawling out of woodwork now

dude conspiracy theories forum is this way

:mad:

sorry dude, you have failed to understand what I said, which seems to be a recurring theme not only with my posts, but with the referendum in general.

I never said they were conspiring for world domination, they are merely following the next logical step as they see it. Also, as you may know, the past is often used as an indicator of the future, this is the case when it comes to political, social and economic questions. When guaging the direction of future political developments, one may draw on the past as a reference to predict how the future may go, just as one draws on past financial information to make predictions of how future financial trends may materialise.

If you understand logic, and indeed are able to apply it, you can make estimations about the directions of certain things, the question again is, do you believe in logic? With a further question, are you capable of applying it.

Perhaps you should take yourself to the conspiracy theories forum, as your style of discussion would probably be more at home.

ei.sdraob

mangaroosh wrote: »

I never said they were conspiring for world domination, they are merely following the next logical step as they see it..

adding to ignore list

K-9

Jaysus, guys, ye all could be right.

Plotician

Hey Mangaroosh, do you ever get the feeling there's a load of naievety around the place at times?

I don't know why people have an issue talking about the idea of a European empire - it makes sense for europe to be thinking this way right now.

That doesn't mean i necessarily want to be part of it, but at least i can acknowledge it could be on it's way.

You're right about history, the chinese, mongols, romans, british etc etc, how many empires over the centuries, Europe's turn coming up?

Personally i prefer to keep an open mind on these things and look at them from a broader perspective. Closing off the power to think just means others are going to do the thinking for you!

Elmo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Please while you at it take FF with you to the asylum



edit: thread reported. this is not a conspiracy theories forum but politics, keep your tinfoil hats on and don't get your lead panties in a twist gentlemen

/

Look forward to seeing you there, Minister

ei.sdraob

Elmo wrote: »

Look forward to seeing you there, Minister

i wish i was i hear they get nice pensions

marco_polo

Plotician wrote: »

Hey Mangaroosh, do you ever get the feeling there's a load of naievety around the place at times?

I don't know why people have an issue talking about the idea of a European empire - it makes sense for europe to be thinking this way right now.

That doesn't mean i necessarily want to be part of it, but at least i can acknowledge it could be on it's way.

You're right about history, the chinese, mongols, romans, british etc etc, how many empires over the centuries, Europe's turn coming up?

Personally i prefer to keep an open mind on these things and look at them from a broader perspective. Closing off the power to think just means others are going to do the thinking for you!

Did many evil empires of the past have entirely voluntary membership and an exit clause?

Article 50

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 188 N(3) [218(3)] of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

ei.sdraob

marco_polo wrote: »

Did many evil empires of the past have entirely voluntary membership and an exit clause?

or a charter of human rights?

/

Elmo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i wish i was i hear they get nice pensions

See that's the prob with the Yes* side always thinking of money




*I note that Declan Ganley** is a mega-rich entrepreneur with backers who have lots of money but then he prob doesn't have a pension, prob got rich enough to do without

**I think as much of him as I do of FF and FG, even less, the new PD

ei.sdraob

Elmo wrote: »

See that's the prob with the Yes* side always thinking of money

*I note that Declan Ganley** is a mega-rich entrepreneur with backers who have lots of money but then he prob doesn't have a pension, prob got rich enough to do without

**I think as much of him as I do of FF and FG, even less, the new PD

its tough economic time you know

as for Ganley

well its not hard to be rich when your businesses "relocated" to tax heavens



/

Plotician

Guys you're not thinking.

Empires don't necessarily have to be inherently evil, and they can be formed by concensus. Empires also usually protected their citizens so human rights can sit quite naturally in the concept.

Anyway time out now - sleep on it!

Scofflaw

Plotician wrote: »

Guys you're not thinking.

Empires don't necessarily have to be inherently evil, and they can be formed by concensus. Empires also usually protected their citizens so human rights can sit quite naturally in the concept.

So, what then defines an "empire" as opposed to any other territorial grouping?

enquiringly,
Scofflaw