How will history record the Lisbon Referendum?

fligedlyflick

the yes voters can tell their grandchildren,
"i remember when north west province was called ireland and we had our own government, unfortunately i bought into the lies at the time about recession and job creation and the blank refusal by the yes parties to discuss the more sinister side of the treaty, i am ashamed for selling our sovereignty for 30 pieces of silver"

fligedlyflick

A Primal Nut wrote: »

The same as the Nice Treaty - completely forgotten about. Along with all the rediculous claims about how it would end Irish neutrality, etc.

and the ridiculous claims that no economic tourists would flock here leading to massive job displacement and overburdening an already burdened health service, or no claims that social welfare would be abused by eastern europeans that will never come here.

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

and the ridiculous claims that no economic tourists would flock here leading to massive job displacement and overburdening an already burdened health service, or no claims that social welfare would be abused by eastern europeans that will never come here.

That was a deliberate decision by our government. It was not a requirement of the Nice treaty. But sure why concern ourselves with reality when the fantasy is so much more exciting and scary

smokingman

The TRUE legacy of the Lisbon treaty?

....

The mods on Boards.ie having to delete all the No side marketing teams new accounts after they abandon the 5 each that they set up pretending to be a "concerned citizen".

fligedlyflick

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That was a deliberate decision by our government. It was not a requirement of the Nice treaty. But sure why concern ourselves with reality when the fantasy is so much more exciting and scary

and strongly refuted dick roche and the rest of the fianna fail criminal liars when queried about it.
your reality seem to be one of blinkered seclusion where none of the nice treaty abominations affected you and the lisbon treaty is practically an invitation to a tea party

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

and strongly refuted dick roche and the rest of the fianna fail criminal liars when queried about it.
your reality seem to be one of blinkered seclusion where none of the nice treaty abominations affected you and the lisbon treaty is practically an invitation to a tea party

Did you ever wonder why the poles only flocked to Ireland and the UK and not the rest of Europe?

It's because the Irish and UK governments could have chosen to require them to have work visas just like the rest of Europe did but they chose not to because they wanted cheap labour. your problem is with the Irish government, not with the Nice treaty and certainly not with Lisbon

fligedlyflick

Sam Vimes wrote: »

your problem is with the Irish government, not with the Nice treaty and certainly not with Lisbon

again, the yes side and their mysterious reasons why i voted no, not content with telling me i voted no the last time because of some abortion law they now feel the need to dictate why i'm voting no again????
of course i have a problem with the irish government, they are criminally inept from running this country, they have a history of lies and backtracking on issues and now we're supposed to trust them and their comical "legally binding guarentees", which carry no weight within a self amending eu constitution?
if their selling point of "yes for jobs" was'nt so ironic and blatantly nonsensical i would actually feel less hostility towards the treaty.
(couple that with the cowards failure to accept out last vote)

turgon

fligedlyflick wrote: »

comical "legally binding guarentees", which carry no weight within a self amending eu constitution

14 words to make everyone ignore you.

fligedlyflick

correction, 2 letters.
N and O

ei.sdraob

smokingman wrote: »

the No side marketing teams new accounts after they abandon the 5 each that they set up pretending to be a "concerned citizen".

let me fix that for you

the No side marketing teams new accounts after they abandon the 5 each that they set up pretending to be a "concerned citizen" of some other country

/

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

again, the yes side and their mysterious reasons why i voted no, not content with telling me i voted no the last time because of some abortion law they now feel the need to dictate why i'm voting no again????

You are blaming the Nice treaty for something our government did

fligedlyflick wrote: »

of course i have a problem with the irish government, they are criminally inept from running this country, they have a history of lies and backtracking on issues and now we're supposed to trust them and their comical "legally binding guarentees", which carry no weight within a self amending eu constitution?

Would you please educate yourself? you've had two years ffs:

Is the Lisbon Treaty self-amending?

No, but it does introduce changes in the way in which the EU treaties can be amended.

Present position
At present, the process for amending the treaties is as follows: All the member states get together in what is called an Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC). This conference agrees proposals for changes to the Treaties. In order for these proposed changes to come into effect, they must be ratified by each member state in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. In Ireland’s case, that may or may not require a referendum. Whether or not a referendum is needed is mainly dependent on whether or not the changes involve a change to the essential scope or objectives of the EU.

This process is called the “ordinary revision procedure” in the Lisbon Treaty.

Changes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty
The Lisbon Treaty provides for what is described as “simplified revision procedures”. There are two such procedures.

One provides that the European Council may unanimously agree changes to the parts of the Treaties that deal with the internal workings of the EU. This means that any member state may veto such a change. Such changes may not increase the competence of the EU. In order to come into effect, any such changes must be ratified by each member state in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. In Ireland’s case, that may or may not require a referendum. Changes to EU treaties do not always need a referendum at present.

The second provides that the European Council has the power to amend the Treaties so as to allow Qualified Majority Voting to operate in certain areas where unanimity is now required or to apply the Ordinary Legislative Procedure in certain areas where a Special Legislative Procedure applies at present. Any such proposal must be agreed unanimously by the European Council so any member state may veto a proposed change. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, any national parliament may prevent these changes coming into effect. Under the proposed amendment to the Constitution of Ireland, the approval of the Dáil and Seanad will be required for Ireland to agree to such proposed changes. Such changes may or may not require a referendum in Ireland. Not all changes to EU treaties need a referendum at present.

http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/lisbon_treaty_faq.html

Ostrom

Hopefully with a south park episode - the sectarian conduct of both 'sides' has been nothing short of comical.

fligedlyflick

Lisbon provides that if one-third of National Parliaments object to the Commission’s proposal for an EU law, the Commission must reconsider it, but not necessarily abandon it (Protocol on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality, Art.7.2). It might review the draft law, or if it considered the objection was not justified, it might ignore it. This right to complain, for that is what it is, is not an increase in the powers of National Parliaments, as it has been widely misrepresented as being, but is symbolic rather of their loss of real power. To say that it is an increase in the power of National Parliaments to “control”, or even to affect, EU legislation is a blatant lie. Lisbon takes away major law-making powers from National Parliaments. It would give power to the EU to legislate in relation to some 32 new policy areas, thereby removing these areas from decision by National Parliaments. It also gives the EU the power to decide many other matters.

your preceding comment in plain english

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

Lisbon provides that if one-third of National Parliaments object to the Commission’s proposal for an EU law, the Commission must reconsider it, but not necessarily abandon it (Protocol on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality, Art.7.2). It might review the draft law, or if it considered the objection was not justified, it might ignore it. This right to complain, for that is what it is, is not an increase in the powers of National Parliaments, as it has been widely misrepresented as being, but is symbolic rather of their loss of real power. To say that it is an increase in the power of National Parliaments to “control”, or even to affect, EU legislation is a blatant lie.

It's more than they have now, now they have no role

fligedlyflick wrote: »

Lisbon takes away major law-making powers from National Parliaments. It would give power to the EU to legislate in relation to some 32 new policy areas, thereby removing these areas from decision by National Parliaments. It also gives the EU the power to decide many other matters.

your preceding comment in plain english

Such as..........

And which ones do you have a particular problem with being decided on an international level with representatives from all countries, including elected and appointed Irish representatives?

fligedlyflick

do you want particular laws or shall i just theorize it?
either way i will most probably be condemned as scaremongering and lying.

take for instance these protocols cowen and martin keep bleating on about, they are manipulated and changed to something contrary to what we were sold , there is pressure on the government to clarify the position and return it to what was originally protection for our state laws, the eu has an obligation to consider, not change or relent, consider the proposal and is under no justification to bow to irish queries or concerns, this is fact, this is something the yes side are eager to sweep under the carpet and will not facilitate such discussions.

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

do you want particular laws or shall i just theorize it?
either way i will most probably be condemned as scaremongering and lying.

take for instance these protocols cowen and martin keep bleating on about, they are manipulated and changed to something contrary to what we were sold , there is pressure on the government to clarify the position and return it to what was originally protection for our state laws, the eu has an obligation to consider, not change or relent, consider the proposal and is under no justification to bow to irish queries or concerns, this is fact, this is something the yes side are eager to sweep under the carpet and will not facilitate such discussions.

This is not fact, this is the most persistent lie of the no campaign.

Lisbon Treaty Article 249 wrote:

“LEGAL ACTS OF THE UNION

233) The heading of Chapter 2 shall be replaced by the following "LEGAL ACTS OF THE UNION, ADOPTION PROCEDURES AND OTHER PROVISIONS".

234) A Section 1 shall be inserted above Article 249:

"SECTION 1 THE LEGAL ACTS OF THE UNION".”



“235) Article 249 shall be amended as follows:

(a) the first paragraph shall be replaced by the following:

"To exercise the Union's competences, the institutions shall adopt regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions.";

(b) the fourth paragraph shall be replaced by the following:

"A decision shall be binding in its entirety. A decision which specifies those to whom it is addressed shall be binding only on them."

A "decision" is legally binding.

Legal context of the guarantees wrote:

Ireland and the Treaty of Lisbon

1. The European Council recalls that the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon requires ratification by each of the 27 Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. It reaffirms its wish to see the Treaty enter into force by the end of 2009.

2. Having carefully noted the concerns of the Irish people as set out by the Taoiseach, the European Council, at its meeting of 11-12 December 2008, agreed that, provided the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, a decision would be taken, in accordance with the necessary legal procedures, to the effect that the Commission shall continue to include one national of each Member State.

3. The European Council also agreed that other concerns of the Irish people, as presented by the Taoiseach, relating to taxation policy, the right to life, education and the family, and Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality, would be addressed to the mutual satisfaction of Ireland and the other Member States, by way of the necessary legal guarantees. It was also agreed that the high importance attached to a number of social issues, including workers' rights, would be confirmed.

4. Against this background, the European Council has agreed on the following set of arrangements, which are fully compatible with the Treaty, in order to provide reassurance and to respond to the concerns of the Irish people:
(a) Decision of the Heads of State or Government of the 27 Member States of the European Union, meeting within the European Council, on the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon (Annex 1);
(b) Solemn Declaration on Workers' Rights, Social Policy and other issues (Annex 2). The European Council has also taken cognisance of the unilateral declaration of Ireland (Annex 3), which will be associated with the Irish instrument of ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon.

5. Regarding the Decision in Annex 1, the Heads of State or Government have declared that:
(i) this Decision gives legal guarantee that certain matters of concern to the Irish people will be unaffected by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;
(ii) its content is fully compatible with the Treaty of Lisbon and will not necessitate any reratification of that Treaty;
(iii) the Decision is legally binding and will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;
(iv) they will, at the time of the conclusion of the next accession Treaty, set out the provisions of the annexed Decision in a Protocol to be attached, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;
(v) the Protocol will in no way alter the relationship between the EU and its Member States. The sole purpose of the Protocol will be to give full Treaty status to the clarifications set out in the Decision to meet the concerns of the Irish people. Its status will be no different from similar clarifications in Protocols obtained by other Member States. The Protocol will clarify but not change either the content or the application of the Treaty of Lisbon.

the reason no one on the yes side is talking about it, or as you put it "sweeping it under the carpet" is because the idea that the guarantees aren't binding is a deliberate lie

fligedlyflick

yeah,
any concerns we have is lies and being spoon fed constant bureaucratic ideology which never addresses the full question reinforces my belief that no voters know what they are voting against whilst yes voters are using the heritage of parental preference to political party allegiance.
can i change topic here slightly and ask why the eu anthem is being played at the unfurling of the eu flag in brussels with full military honours?
something where a decision was made to drop them?
or was that decision open for revaluation?

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

yeah,
any concerns we have is lies and being spoon fed constant bureaucratic ideology which never addresses the full question reinforces my belief that no voters know what they are voting against whilst yes voters are using the heritage of parental preference to political party allegiance.

Eh, mate, I hate Fianna Fail and our politicians and don't listen to anything they say. Instead I have looked up the facts and what I have given you above is a fact. If you don't want to believe that a decision within the EU is legally binding and that there is a massive conspiracy involving thousands of members of 27 governments and the United Nations to trick the Irish people so the EU can force abortion on us and raise our taxes you can do that but please take it here where it belongs. In this forum people discuss reality.

And if you truly believe that you shouldn't be talking about the Lisbon treaty, you should be raising an army to take down this fascist dictatorship.

fligedlyflick wrote: »

can i change topic here slightly and ask why the eu anthem is being played at the unfurling of the eu flag in brussels with full military honours?
something where a decision was made to drop them?
or was that decision open for revaluation?

It's always been the unofficial flag of the EU, the constitution made it official but that part was removed so it remains unofficial but still used, as it always was. But you won't believe that because it doesn't fit with your idea of the EU as an evil dictator

Long Onion

That depends - which one are you talking about?

fligedlyflick

so, im outside the boundaries of reality.
hmmm, such a shame that petty name calling has replaced honest discussions, have you michael o'learys slanderous full page advert pinned to your bedroom wall as a beacon of self righteous posturing?

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

so, im outside the boundaries of reality.
hmmm, such a shame that petty name calling has replaced honest discussions, have you michael o'learys slanderous full page advert pinned to your bedroom wall as a beacon of self righteous posturing?

I have provided you with irrefutable proof that the guarantees are legally binding completely independent of our government and politicians and you have refused to accept it. What am I supposed to say to someone who insists that black is white no matter how conclusively it is proven that black is in fact black?

On this issue you are outside the boundaries of reality. The guarantees are binding. This is as certain as the knowledge that the sun will rise tomorrow. You have been lied to by anti-EU extremists who are feeding on your mistrust of the government. You are a pawn in their plan to disrupt and eventually destroy the greatest peace project the world has ever seen.

fligedlyflick

claim :Promise of peace. The interest groups behind the ‘Brussels EU’ are trying to obtain a ‘Yes’ vote from the Irish people by promising them a peaceful future. The facts are: The oil and drug cartel is strategically militarising the European nations as a military superpower to defend its economic interests anywhere in the world with military means – including the option of nuclear weapons.

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

claim :Promise of peace. The interest groups behind the ‘Brussels EU’ are trying to obtain a ‘Yes’ vote from the Irish people by promising them a peaceful future. The facts are: The oil and drug cartel is strategically militarising the European nations as a military superpower to defend its economic interests anywhere in the world with military means – including the option of nuclear weapons.

Good man. You're showing exactly why this treaty should never have been put to a referendum here and why it wasn't in any other country.

fligedlyflick

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Good man. You're showing exactly why this treaty should never have been put to a referendum here and why it wasn't in any other country.

so in essence you're advocating the sinister hidden agenda and subjugation of democracy. you should bat for the no side

Daftendirekt

History will remember the Lisbon Referendum as a very good argument against direct democracy.

ei.sdraob

fligedlyflick wrote: »

so in essence you're advocating the sinister hidden agenda and subjugation of democracy. you should bat for the no side

Yes we welcome a

Federal United States of Europe

with open arms here

Daftendirekt wrote: »

History will remember the Lisbon Referendum as a very good argument against direct democracy.

as if Hitler and Mussolini werent enough

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

so in essence you're advocating the sinister hidden agenda and subjugation of democracy. you should bat for the no side

No I'm pointing out that the sinister agenda and the subjugation of democracy exists only in your mind and it was placed there quite deliberately by people who hate the EU and want to see its destruction. The sad thing is that you can see that you're being lied to but you're siding with the people spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about evil conspiracies, hidden military agendas and deliberate deceptions to steal power all without an ounce of proof and when someone presents you with actual proof that the EU is not an evil dictatorship you won't accept it because it contradicts the preconceived notions these people have implanted in your mind. The hardest thing in this world to fight is someone's preconceptions

you are being lied to but not by the people you think

MrMatisse

Furious-Dave wrote: »

I don't recall ever implying that I think the electorate are stupid. The analogy of children eating vegetables fits fine IMO. Children don't know why the vegetables are good for them and may not like the taste, but it's got nothing to do with being stupid. And from what I've seen a lot of people still don't know what the treaty is really about and how it will benefit them. Are we being told that if we don't ratify Lisbon we will be permanently impoverished?
Edited: My dad was at a conference recently at the Institute of International and European Affairs, and in a speech Brendan Halligan said that if the negative consequences of rejecting the Lisbon Treaty do occur, it could be 20 years before Ireland recovers. But hey, at least we upheld the principles of democracy, and that's all that matters right?

Brian Cowen doesn't have to read treaties, though he probably should. He has advisers to do that and summarize it for him.

Utter Rubbish

Sam Vimes

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Utter Rubbish

Keep telling yourself that mate. All the experts are wrong and Sinn Fein, Coir, Declan Ganley and the communists are right.

fligedlyflick

my conceptions of the eu, pre or non pre are every bit as valid as your desire for a centrally controlled EEC, free from actually just concerning itself with dreary trade laws,
does the belief that this new treaty is not warranted not lack any conviction with you lot?
leading european economists reckon that we will do fine with already established treaties.
(i know how valued the opinions of faceless businessmen mean here so i'll just pop this in)

"The advent of 12 new Member States has not made the negotiation of new EU laws more difficult since they joined the EU. On the contrary, a study by the Science-Politique University in Paris calculated that new rules have been adopted a quarter times more quickly since the enlargement from 15 to 27 Member States in 2004 as compared with the two years before enlargement. The study also showed that the 15 older Member States block proposed EU laws twice as often as the newcomers. Professor Helen Wallace of the London School of Economics has found that the EU institutions are working as well as they ever did despite the enlargement of the EU from 15 to 27 members. She found that “the evidence of practice since May 2004 suggests that the EU’s institutional processes and practice have stood up rather robustly to the impact of enlargement.” The Nice Treaty voting arrangements thus seem to be working well."