Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

To the NO side .....

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    vanla sighs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 124 ✭✭vanla sighs


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    No, Ireland can't. A full Commission cannot be constituted under the Nice enlargement rules, because it would be in breach of the Treaty provisions, and thus illegally constituted. That in turn would render all the legislation it produced illegal.

    regards,
    Scofflaw

    As I said, Ireland can keep a Commissioner whether we vote yes or No, and that is true. The Commission will have to be reduced but that does not automatically mean Ireland loses its Commissioner. Maybe Germany or France would lose theirs? :)


  • Options
    #33
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    vanla sighs wrote: »
    As I said, Ireland can keep a Commissioner whether we vote yes or No, and that is true. The Commission will have to be reduced but that does not automatically mean Ireland loses its Commissioner. Maybe Germany or France would lose theirs? :)

    Everybody would lose them in turn. The most likely agreement is the two-thirds Commission that was originally in Lisbon, and Ireland was on the first list for that one.

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #34
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,198 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    if we vote yes do you think our comissioner will vote for blair?, i think they will because of our close ties with the uk, whats good for them could be good for us...
    Blair is bad for europe and it would be a disgrace to have him as our first sitting president.. Its even a disgrace that he could be considered for the position.
    He has blood on his hands, when a dog gets a taste for blood there usually put down.

    I'd like to see mary robinsons name put forward by the irish media, would be great for them to start suggesting it if the yes vote wins..


  • Options
    #35
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    if we vote yes do you think our comissioner will vote for blair?, i think they will because of our close ties with the uk, whats good for them could be good for us...
    Blair is bad for europe and it would be a disgrace to have him as our first sitting president.. Its even a disgrace that he could be considered for the position.
    He has blood on his hands, when a dog gets a taste for blood there usually put down.

    It's not the Commissioners who vote, it's the governments. I couldn't really predict who we'd back - Fianna Fáil might back Blair.
    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    I'd like to see mary robinsons name put forward by the irish media, would be great for them to start suggesting it if the yes vote wins..

    That's a very interesting suggestion. I'd like that. Also, COIR would explode.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #36
    vanla sighs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 124 ✭✭vanla sighs


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Everybody would lose them in turn. The most likely agreement is the two-thirds Commission that was originally in Lisbon, and Ireland was on the first list for that one.

    regards,
    Scofflaw

    Great word there......"agreement", ALL member States would have to agree, every member State would have the right to veto if they felt their interests were not best served. :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    vanla sighs wrote: »
    Great word there......"agreement", ALL member States would have to agree, every member State would have the right to veto if they felt their interests were not best served. :)

    It doesn't actually matter how you spin it - a Commission constituted under the Nice enlargement rules cannot be a full Commission, and there has to be a Commission. Ireland has one veto out of 27 - and would have nobody's goodwill. Do the arithmetic.

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #38
    vanla sighs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 124 ✭✭vanla sighs


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    It doesn't actually matter how you spin it - a Commission constituted under the Nice enlargement rules cannot be a full Commission, and there has to be a Commission. Ireland has one veto out of 27 - and would have nobody's goodwill. Do the arithmetic.

    regards,
    Scofflaw

    And Germany has 1 veto....and France has 1 veto.....and Malta has 1 veto.....every State has a veto if Lisbon falls again....and that is imho a very good thing. I wonder, why did the EU enlarge when it didn't have the correct treaties in place to ensure such an enlargement would be practical further down the road? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #39
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,198 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    It's not the Commissioners who vote, it's the governments. I couldn't really predict who we'd back - Fianna Fáil might back Blair.



    That's a very interesting suggestion. I'd like that. Also, COIR would explode.

    I think most europeans would also like it, along with cheri blair, michelle obama, the german one and hillary clinton...

    now all we need is for an piece to appear in tomorrows hearld where mary robinson makes no comment on rumours she may run for eu president...

    Ill leave my vote until tomorrow night just in the off chance it appears, but im not giving a yes with blairs name in the running...


  • Options
    #40
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    Ill leave my vote until tomorrow night just in the off chance it appears, but im not giving a yes with blairs name in the running...

    I think it's unlikely and the position has little power of any kind so I'm not sure if it would really matter to anything. Now don't get me wrong I'd hate him to get the job too.


  • Options
    #41
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,198 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    He could possibly walk us into a world war, he will be our offical on the world stage and the wrong word in the wrong place could spell serious trouble, he's 2 cosy with big business and the arms industry....and we all know there's no profit in peace, wouldnt surprise me if he has shares in blackwater..

    You could say im being a little paranoid but at the same time id rather not take the chance...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    vanla sighs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 124 ✭✭vanla sighs


    The European Project turns into the Blair Witch Project......:eek:


  • Options
    #43
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    He could possibly walk us into a world war, he will be our offical on the world stage and the wrong word in the wrong place could spell serious trouble, he's 2 cosy with big business and the arms industry....and we all know there's no profit in peace, wouldnt surprise me if he has shares in blackwater..

    You could say im being a little paranoid but at the same time id rather not take the chance...

    Well I was going to say I think you're being paranoid. ;)

    I just can't see him getting the votes. They'll have to find a more neutral candidate. Funny thing is Blair is a good politician even if you or I disagree with some of the things he's done or who he's been involved with.


  • Options
    #44
    zenno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭zenno


    the independant quote: Ireland looks set to endorse the Lisbon Treaty on the future of Europe tomorrow, an outcome which will come as a huge relief to the establishments in Dublin and Brussels. Tomorrow's referendum is likely to endorse the ratification of the treaty, reversing the result of last year's vote. Much has changed in Ireland since June 2008, including the state of the economy. The disastrous slump in the past year may convince many voters... what sort of waster from the indo is this. he/she already knows the treaty will be passed lol. whoever it is is not keeping up with the days. my poll 56% no.


  • Options
    #45
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    meglome wrote: »
    Well I was going to say I think you're being paranoid. ;)

    I just can't see him getting the votes. They'll have to find a more neutral candidate. Funny thing is Blair is a good politician even if you or I disagree with some of the things he's done or who he's been involved with.


    You talking about the same Blair who effectively lied to the World about WMD and to this day won't admit he was wrong? That guy? Yeh great politician.

    Oh and this talk of the president having no powers and the fact that Blair would really be a figurehead. Interesting. Until you consider Article 48 where the EU could grant him a much bigger role in the EU without the need for a referendum in Ireland.


  • Options
    #46
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    meglome wrote: »
    Funny thing is Blair is a good politician even if you or I disagree with some of the things he's done or who he's been involved with.

    I wonder if the majority of the yes posters here agree with you?


  • Options
    #47
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    He could possibly walk us into a world war, he will be our offical on the world stage and the wrong word in the wrong place could spell serious trouble, he's 2 cosy with big business and the arms industry....and we all know there's no profit in peace, wouldnt surprise me if he has shares in blackwater..

    You could say im being a little paranoid but at the same time id rather not take the chance...

    You're being a little paranoid - he wouldn't have the necessary powers to "walk us into war", and there's no possibility whatsoever of getting the 27 countries to agree on something like Iraq - they didn't even agree first time, when it wasn't obvious that it was all lies.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #48
    Boskowski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭Boskowski


    Rb wrote: »
    Don't worry OP, the No campaigners here have yet to put forward one factual, treaty based reason to vote against the document that hasn't been instantly debunked by some of the many superb posters here in the many months these debates have been running. So as opposed to sitting here questioning whether you're going to do the right thing, either enjoy a good nights sleep and go vote well rested tomorrow or find something entertaining to do because the the facts sure aren't going to come :)

    Actually it's quite the opposite. It seems you just happen to ignore/black out genuine reasons. But I think the word we're looking for is....


    ...anyway


  • Options
    #49
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    You're being a little paranoid - he wouldn't have the necessary powers to "walk us into war", and there's no possibility whatsoever of getting the 27 countries to agree on something like Iraq - they didn't even agree first time, when it wasn't obvious that it was all lies.
    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Funny I would have said the same thing about him before he walked the British into an unjust and unfounded war.

    I'd be more comfortable if not for Article 48 of the treaty where the EU could in theory change his job description by voting between themselves without the need to go back to the electorate.


  • Options
    #50
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    johnathan woss wrote: »
    I'm 99% sure I'm going to vote YES tomorrow, but 1% of me still has a nagging doubt.

    So here's your chance ..... give me some reasons (backed up with actual LOGIC and FACTS) to vote NO.......

    And that 1% is what these people feed on :mad:


  • Options
    #51
    MavisDavis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,263 ✭✭✭MavisDavis


    johnathan woss wrote: »
    I'm 99% sure I'm going to vote YES tomorrow, but 1% of me still has a nagging doubt.

    So here's your chance ..... give me some reasons (backed up with actual LOGIC and FACTS) to vote NO.......

    I can give you a good reason to vote YES: it'll piss off that smarmy git Declan Ganley. And the Shinners. :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    MavisDavis wrote: »
    I can give you a good reason to vote YES: it'll piss off that smarmy git Declan Ganley. And the Shinners. :)

    Don't you mean FF and the 2 Brians? Ah it was a ridiculous argument, grand so.


  • Options
    #53
    Rb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,277 ✭✭✭✭Rb


    free-man wrote: »
    Don't you mean FF and the 2 Brians? Ah it was a ridiculous argument, grand so.
    How would voting Yes piss off FF?


  • Options
    #54
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    Rb wrote: »
    How would voting Yes piss off FF?

    You must have misunderstood.

    It'll all be over soon.


  • Options
    #55
    Rb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,277 ✭✭✭✭Rb


    free-man wrote: »
    You must have misunderstood.

    It'll all be over soon.
    No, I believe you're confusing yourself now, and not for the first time either I would imagine :)


  • Options
    #56
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    free-man wrote: »
    Funny I would have said the same thing about him before he walked the British into an unjust and unfounded war.

    What, that the Prime Minister of the UK didn't have the powers to walk the Uk into an unjust war?
    free-man wrote: »
    I'd be more comfortable if not for Article 48 of the treaty where the EU could in theory change his job description by voting between themselves without the need to go back to the electorate.

    Then be comfortable, since the bits of the Treaty that can be changed by the simplified revision procedure in Article 48 don't include that job description.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #57
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    free-man wrote: »
    It'll all be over soon.

    Until the next treaty, when all the same cranks, with the same reasons, come out against it, no matter what is in it...


  • Options
    #58
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Rb wrote: »
    No, I believe you're confusing yourself now, and not for the first time either I would imagine :)

    free-man confused himself by editing his original post but not paying attention to what he said the second time ;)


  • Options
    #59
    TheZohanS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,582 ✭✭✭✭TheZohanS


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    It doesn't actually matter how you spin it - a Commission constituted under the Nice enlargement rules cannot be a full Commission, and there has to be a Commission. Ireland has one veto out of 27 - and would have nobody's goodwill. Do the arithmetic.

    regards,
    Scofflaw

    We would be better off with the rotating Comissioner structure. That's one thing that the Yes side are in agreement with.


  • Options
    #60
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    Rb wrote: »
    No, I believe you're confusing yourself now, and not for the first time either I would imagine :)


    It appears your basing this on me quoting a poster saying you could vote yes to piss off ganley and my response being or to piss off FF and the two Brians.

    Maybe the neural synapses didn't quite fire but it doesn't take much to infer that I meant the opposite and if you were to vote no it would annoy FF.

    Oh well.. like i said it'll all be over soon and you wont have to worry your head over it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    TheZohan wrote: »
    We would be better off with the rotating Comissioner structure. That's one thing that the Yes side are in agreement with.

    That's something I'm almost completely ambivalent about. On the one hand I can completely see the argument that the Commission needs to be reduced, for practical reasons. On the other hand I can also completely see the argument that having a Commissioner for every country increases the popular legitimacy of the Commission.

    ambivalently,
    Scofflaw


Advertisement