The most respected nation in the EU

Sam Vimes

gambiaman wrote: »

I am accusing no-one.

gambiaman wrote: »

Last years No vote was not about tax, abortion and neutrality

Both of those cannot be true because that is what the surveys found. Either you are accusing three independent companies of corruption or you accept that they were their unbiased findings.

And please tell me what it was about then. Bet you a euro it won't be something from the treaty

prinz

gambiaman wrote: »

Correct.
We are voting on the Lssbon Treaty Amendment to Bunreacht (sans guarantees) and you know it.

er no, because the government has to accept the guarantees too.
The guarantees are dependant on the ratification of Lisbon.

Sam Vimes

procure11 wrote: »

oh come off it...1 in 2 people know that those millward b survey crap is inaccurate and most probably commercially and politically motivated.

For what purpose? What the fcuk would the government have to gain from not getting the real issues for the no vote? Then they couldn't address them and the second referendum would inevitably be another no!!!!!

It doesn't make any sense

imeddyhobbs

Sam Vimes wrote: »

An internet poll does not use the polling methods that gave the Millward Brown survey an accuracy of 2-3%. They do this thing for a living and the maths are unquestionable....unless you really really don't want to believe them

Did Millward Brown predict a no vote in Irelands first Lisbon treaty???Did Millward Brown predict a huge downward spiral in the world economy in 2007?

P. Breathnach

procure11 wrote: »

Are you for real?

Basically we are voting to make changes to the Irish constitution..can you elaborate please!

Yes, I'm for real. It's all in the booklet that accompanies your voting card. We are being asked to vote on the Twenty-Eighth Amendment of the Constitution.

Sir Oxman

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No we're not. The treaty in 2008 reduced the size of the commission and this one doesn't because the rule to reduce it will not be invoked. Please educate yourself before you embarrass your country

Are you saying the Lisbon Treaty has been changed since the last time we voted on it?
The one that's been ratified in several parliaments?

Then that means it must be re-ratified.

I'll put your ignorance down to the lateness and your rudeness down to you sir.

namloc1980

procure11 wrote: »

oh come off it...1 in 2 people know that those millward b survey crap is inaccurate and most probably commercially and politically motivated.

Oh so you did your own survey. Please share your findings or is that the only one!

Sam Vimes

gambiaman wrote: »

Correct.
We are voting on the Lssbon Treaty Amendment to Bunreacht (sans guarantees) and you know it.

I just said this but just to reiterate and emphasise, the guarantees have already been ratified. They did not require a referendum. They are currently binding but only enter into force if Lisbon is ratified because it doesn't make any sense otherwise

moogester

Sam Vimes wrote: »

An internet poll does not use the polling methods that gave the Millward Brown survey an accuracy of 2-3%. They do this thing for a living and the maths are unquestionable....unless you really really don't want to believe them

The poll on here accurately predicted the 2008 result did it not?

Did Millward Brown do one then & if so did it accurately reflect the result?

Sir Oxman

Sam Vimes wrote: »

For what purpose? What the fcuk would the government have to gain from not getting the real issues for the no vote? Then they couldn't address them and the second referendum would inevitably be another no!!!!!

It doesn't make any sense

In droidland it doesn't.

P. Breathnach

gambiaman wrote: »

Correct.
We are voting on the Lssbon Treaty Amendment to Bunreacht (sans guarantees) and you know it.

Wrong. I think you know it is wrong. But it would be ungentlemanly to call you a liar.

namloc1980

gambiaman wrote: »

Are you saying the Lisbon Treaty has been changed since the last time we voted on it?
The one that's been ratified in several parliaments?

Then that means it must be re-ratified.

I'll put your ignorance down to the lateness and your rudeness down to you sir.

The Treaty text itself is the same......he didn't claim otherwise. However the Guarantees clarify the Treaty and are legally binding when/if the Treaty is passed...why is that so hard to understand??

Sam Vimes

gambiaman wrote: »

Are you saying the Lisbon Treaty has been changed since the last time we voted on it?
The one that's been ratified in several parliaments?

Then that means it must be re-ratified.

I'll put your ignorance down to the lateness and your rudeness down to you sir.

LOL you talk about my ignorance

IF THE LISBON TREATY DOES NOT COME IN TO FORCE


The present rules provide that the number of Commissioners must be less than the number of member states once the number of member states reaches 27. There are currently 27 member states so, if the Lisbon Treaty is not ratified, then the next Commission must have less than 27 members. The current rules provide that the Council must decide, unanimously, how many Commission members there will be. The members must be chosen according to a rotation system based on the principle of equality and the Council must decide, unanimously, how exactly this is to be implemented.


IF THE LISBON TREATY DOES COME IN TO FORCE


If the Treaty comes into force then all member states will nominate a Commissioner for the period 2009 – 2014. The Lisbon Treaty provides a mechanism for the possible reduction of the size of the Commission from 2014. This mechanism, if used, would result in two-thirds of the member states, rather than all of them, nominating a Commissioner in 2014. There are 27 member states at present. So, if the number of member states remains the same, there would be 18 Commissioners in the period 2014 – 2019.


Under this mechanism the right to nominate a Commissioner would rotate among the member states on an equal basis. This means that each member state would nominate a member of the Commission for two out of every three Commissions (that is, for 10 years out of every 15 year cycle).


However, the European Council has decided that, if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, it will not implement this mechanism in 2014 and will instead continue the present arrangement whereby each member state nominates a Commissioner.

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

The text of the treaty has not been changed but they have agreed a legally binding decision not to use the procedure meant to reduce the size of the commission. The procedure is there but they are legally prevented from using it

moogester

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I just said this but just to reiterate and emphasise, the guarantees have already been ratified. They did not require a referendum. They are currently binding but only enter into force if Lisbon is ratified because it doesn't make any sense otherwise

There is a gentlemans agreement (nothing signed anywhere mind) to stand by these guarantees if/when the treaty is ratified.

Essentially you are voting on the same treaty as in 2008 - even the politicians will admit this.

namloc1980

moogester wrote: »

There is a gentlemans agreement (nothing signed anywhere mind) to stand by these guarantees if/when the treaty is ratified.

Essentially you are voting on the same treaty as in 2008 - even the politicians will admit this.

No one says otherwise....the text is the same...we are not saying it's changed.

BTW

Guarantees wrote:

(iii) the Decision is legally binding and will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;

LEGALLY BINDING suggests a tad more than a gentlemans agreement don't ya think???

P. Breathnach

namloc1980 wrote: »

The Treaty text itself is the same......he didn't claim otherwise. However the Guarantees clarify the Treaty and are legally binding when/if the Treaty is passed...why is that so hard to understand??

Of course it's not hard to understand. Some people don't want to believe it or, more likely, that want to convince others that the guarantees mean nothing. The FUD campaign will continue until 10 pm. Then the busybodies will all melt away into the shadows.

Sam Vimes

moogester wrote: »

The poll on here accurately predicted the 2008 result did it not?

The Coir poll was quite accurate too. A stopped clock is right twice a day

moogester wrote: »

Did Millward Brown do one then & if so did it accurately reflect the result?

Afaik they were the first people to come out with a poll that showed the no side ahead. There was a big surge nearer the vote but I doubt if many people's reasons for voting no changed after they voted because that wouldn't make any sense. If you want to argue that polls are irrelevant take it to the mathematics forum where they will be glad to correct you.

Also when someone says that those weren't the reasons for the no vote it's quite rare, almost unheard of that they can give me a treaty based reason why they voted no. What were your reasons?

Sam Vimes

namloc1980 wrote: »

LEGALLY BINDING suggests a tad more than a gentlemans agreement don't ya think???

Not if you really really really really really really really really really don't want it to mean that because if it meant that you would have to admit you were wrong

Sir Oxman

Sam Vimes wrote: »

LOL you talk about my ignorance


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

The text of the treaty has not been changed but they have agreed a legally binding decision not to use the procedure meant to reduce the size of the commission. The procedure is there but they are legally prevented from using it

Ciao, I concede.
But you are a rude bugger.

Best of luck to the No's.

imeddyhobbs

Sam Vimes talks a lot but yet says nothing
Sam Vimes is not even 100 percent interested
Sam Vimes is a yes voter
Sam Vimes has no bullets in his gun

namloc1980

imeddyhobbs wrote: »

Sam Vimes talks a lot but yet says nothing
Sam Vimes is not even 100 percent interested
Sam Vimes is a yes voter
Sam Vimes has no bullets in his gun

Attack the post...not the poster. Poor form sir.

Sam Vimes

gambiaman wrote: »

Ciao, I concede.
But you are a rude bugger.

Best of luck to the No's.

Maybe I am rude, I apologise. My patience has become wafer thin over the past few weeks dealing with the same old nonsense over and over again. You're conceding but at this point I would normally have to spend the next ten pages explaining that the EU are not engaged in a massive conspiracy to trick us into thinking they're binding and that they are highly unlikely to be lizard people. This has been a refreshing and I thank you

imeddyhobbs

namloc1980 wrote: »

Attack the post...not the poster. Poor form sir.

You are a snake in the grass my friend

namloc1980

imeddyhobbs wrote: »

You are a snake in the grass my friend

Another No voter whose cherished myth has been exploded and now they can't handle it. *rolleyes*

moogester

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Also when someone says that those weren't the reasons for the no vote it's quite rare, almost unheard of that they can give me a treaty based reason why they voted no. What were your reasons?

I'm one of the 400 odd million who didnt get a vote

Húrin

Rb wrote: »

If we vote No, we'll be the laughing stock of the EU when we're asked what it was in the treaty we didn't like, and we have nothing to say.

Article 28D - do you think we might be able to get them to pull it out?

Sir Oxman

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Maybe I am rude, I apologise. My patience has become wafer thin over the past few weeks dealing with the same old nonsense over and over again. You're conceding but at this point I would normally have to spend the next ten pages explaining that the EU are not engaged in a massive conspiracy to trick us into thinking they're binding and that they are highly unlikely to be lizard people. This has been a refreshing and I thank you

No bother.
Obviously, I am still opposite to you but I have been reading a lot (here and elsewhere) and I appreciate your passion and patience!

Can't wish you good luck, but honours due.

PS Conceding that point but not the principle..just to make that's sure...

imeddyhobbs

moogester wrote: »

I'm one of the 400 odd million who didnt get a vote

Well welcome to the free republic,the free republic where its acceptable to have several votes on the same issue.some People down here dont even like Sinn Fein,they say sinn fein wants it both ways....that reminds me of the yes side down here

moogester

imeddyhobbs wrote: »

Well welcome to the free republic,the free republic where its acceptable to have several votes on the same issue

Lol

Best of luck to all tomorrow

More luck to the NO side obviously

Rb

namloc1980 wrote: »

Another No voter whose cherished myth has been exploded and now they can't handle it. *rolleyes*

Bingo

Húrin wrote: »

Article 28D - do you think we might be able to get them to pull it out?

Is there enough reason to?

I wouldn't imagine the EDA is what will be on people's minds when they tick the No box tomorrow, to be quite honest. As to whether the EU would actually remove the entire article, I'm not too sure as such an action would be a severe setback.