Lisbon Treaty

[Student Mullet]

It's in our interests to build positive relationships with those countries however. That will not be achieved by subscribing to Lisbon, in order to "confront" them.
Was it in the Lisbon Treaty that we would confront China and Russia?

[mypost]

You didn't see the word confront in ". :o

[pete]

Prime Time have their big investigation on Declan Ganley on Thursday night. Based on previous Prime Time investigations I wouldn't expect too much.

I see Ganley wants a directly elected EU President now. Not sure how this gives Ireland greater input as at least when leaders of the governments pick the President we are 1 of 27 instead of 5m from 400-500m.

:confused:

He is also proposing an EU wide Libertas party to contest EU elections. As a pro EU person should be interesting to see what interesting groups he attracts he join him.

[mypost]

Prime Time have their big investigation on Declan Ganley on Thursday night.

I see Ganley wants a directly elected EU President now.

He's always wanted that.

Tbh, can't see what PT will investigate that isn't already known. Not that they should be investigating him in the first place.

[dahamsta]

Why shouldn't he be investigated? Transparency is the key to honest politics. Has he been 100% up-front and decared who's backing him and Libertas, now and during the Lisbon campaign?

adam

[mypost]

He has already stated publically on many occasions that Libertas will disclose that info when required.

There would be no investigation at all, if the vote had gone the other way. It's part of the propaganda machine imo, in order to discredit him/the result, and use it as a reason to hold another one.

[Macy]

He has already stated publically on many occasions that Libertas will disclose that info when required.

There would be no investigation at all, if the vote had gone the other way. It's part of the propaganda machine imo, in order to discredit him/the result, and use it as a reason to hold another one.
It's perfectly reasonable for politicians to be investigated, and to establish where their interests lie. The only pity is that more investigative journalism isn't done in Ireland.

[dahamsta]

He has already stated publically on many occasions that Libertas will disclose that info when required.It's required now, and it was required then. Political funding must be open and transparent at all times.

[mypost]

Instead, there should be an investigation into why taxpayers' and party political funding, together with the full weight of the business and media community failed to get the political establishment over the line. And another one into why thousands of €'s were spent on a pointless survey during the summer, which cost a lot and revealed little, at a time of economic crisis for the country.

[dahamsta]

It shouldn't be "instead", it should be "as well". It should apply across the board.

You seem to believe that Ganley should be an exception to this, can you give me one valid reason why please?

adam

[shantykelly]

It's required now, and it was required then. Political funding must be open and transparent at all times.

:D
for this government to request the background to political funding is nothing short of both hilarious and hypocritical.

[pete]

It is possible to be anti Lisbon Treaty without blindly supporting Ganley.

Interesting that has only now emerged that he gave Libertas a 200k loan. What are the rules for that? Does anyone know what the threshold for anonymous political donations is?

[mypost]

You seem to believe that Ganley should be an exception to this, can you give me one valid reason why please?

They're in no position to question his funding, when they don't have to explain how they funded their own campaign.

Every interview he does, every time he has to answer questions from politicians both here and abroad, his funding is queried. Our own politicians love the subject, many who sheltered corrupt members of their own parties for years. The European Commission/Parliament are obsessed with it. These are people who can't conduct audits on their accounts, and they're worried about Libertas' funding of a ref campaign?? :confused:

Ganley and Libertas were one of several non-political groups to oppose the treaty, yet are the easy target to cover up the government's disasterous ref campaign.

[dahamsta]

They're in no position to question his funding, when they don't have to explain how they funded their own campaign.Move on from the hypocrisy of the government and answer the question you were asked.


It shouldn't be "instead", it should be "as well". It should apply across the board.

You seem to believe that Ganley should be an exception to this, can you give me one valid reason why please?

If you don't you're just trolling, and you know how trolls are dealt with in here.

[mypost]

I don't see Ganley as an exception to it, he will have to declare it when asked by the authorities, but I don't understand the fixation with his opponents over how his campaign was funded, both here and abroad. :confused:

If he lost, there would have been no investigations, regardless of how it was funded.

[OneRedArmy]

It is possible to be anti Lisbon Treaty without blindly supporting Ganley.

Interesting that has only now emerged that he gave Libertas a 200k loan. What are the rules for that? Does anyone know what the threshold for anonymous political donations is?Emerged a while back Pete.

Rules iirc are that if it is a loan (ie plan for repayment that is adhered to) then it is kosher but if its viewed as not being repayable then its a donation and it is against the funding rules.

[pete]

Rules iirc are that if it is a loan (ie plan for repayment that is adhered to) then it is kosher but if its viewed as not being repayable then its a donation and it is against the funding rules.

Did Bertie "dig out" Ahern write that rule? :D

[mypost]

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/libertas-shows-its-true-colours-1552013.html

So, it was Declan Ganley who declared that "re-negotiation (of the treaty) was not an option" :eek::rolleyes:

Meanwhile, a good read below :cool:

http://www.spectator.org/archives/2008/11/25/european-fantasies

[mypost]

An Oireachtas sub-committee looking at Ireland's future in the EU has found that its position in Europe has been diminished.

The sub-committee said that Ireland could suffer serious economic consequences, as a result of the No vote in the Lisbon referendum last June.

The majority report warned that other States are likely to develop a mechanism to allow them move forward - without Ireland - with the reforms envisaged by the Treaty.

The findings were endorsed by all the main parties in the Dáil, but Sinn Féin and the independent Senator Ronan Mullen dissented from the main report.


It could, the report says, damage the ability of Irish banks to raise funds in international money markets and make it more difficult to compete for foreign direct investment.

The majority report says it is for the Government to devise a way of dealing with the consequences of the No vote.

However, it says ratification by the Oireachtas is not desirable and a solution involving Ireland leaving the EU is 'unthinkable.'

Sinn Féin said the majority report ignored all the concerns of the electorate expressed in the referendum and did not respect the decision of the voters.

Senator Mullins said the Committee's majority report had failed to address the concerns surrounding important social and ethical issues and for that reason he could not support it.

The report also said that there are no legal obstacles to prevent Ireland from holding a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

'No legal obstacle appears to exist to having a referendum either on precisely the same issue as that dealt with on June 12 or some variation thereof,' the parliamentary committee on Ireland's future in the EU said in the report.

1. Every major EU country that has ratified, is already suffering a recession with us.

2. In theory, the other 26 member states could move forward on Lisbon without us, but impossible in practice.

We'll suffer the same consequences as the other countries who rejected EU referenda did. They haven't collapsed since, and neither will we.

[pete]

2. In theory, the other 26 member states could move forward on Lisbon without us, but impossible in practice..

They would likely need a new Treaty or partial one removing the bits Ireland are part of like EU Commissioner.

[mypost]

They would likely need a new Treaty or partial one removing the bits Ireland are part of like EU Commissioner.

Without us, there can be no treaty as it requires unanimous approval. Their governments know that as well as ours.



'Stop the hue and cry'

Europe can get by very well without a new treaty 'The Czech constitutional court judges' yes to the treaty of Lisbon is an important stage victory for the new European reform treaty. But it's no more than that. Its oVaclav Klaus is an economist and climate change scepticpponents can go on bringing charges against it because the judges in Brno have only ruled on certain disputed points.

The treaty has never been able to reach Europeans' hearts. It is a cold compilation, seen by many as the lap dog of elite Europe-enthusiasts. And it will never lose this tarnish - as long as it remains an issue, that is. And if it doesn't? Europe will just keep on going. Experience shows that good results can be had even under today's rules. We can co-operate more even without a new treaty. All this hue and cry about Europe's future has got to stop'

http://http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article5257903.ece

Welcome to the new cold war. Unless the Irish people get a grip and recant their democratic rejection of the Lisbon treaty, Ireland will be forced to leave the European Union.

The country will then be exiled to the European Economic Area, a tiny EU annexe that currently comprises Norway, Liechtenstein and bankrupt Iceland. Alongside our new partners, we will form the world’s puniest international alliance: the axis of frostbite.

The prospect of Ireland being forced to join this undesirably exclusive club is presented as a real possibility in the report of the Oireachtas subcommittee on Ireland’s future in the European Union, a cross-party group ostensibly created to provide calm, objective analysis of the nation’s options in the wake of the defeated Lisbon referendum.

As the report’s shameless bias in favour of the treaty illustrates, however, the subcommittee was never anything other than a charade: a peevish attempt by the pro-Lisbon establishment to chastise and frighten an electorate it had failed to convince during the campaign. The report essentially comprises a restatement of the Yes case, framed in alarmist terms clearly designed to soften up voters for an inevitable second referendum. But blended in with the old wine in new bottles is another variety of plonk vinted entirely from sour grapes.

The resentment of the parties that advocated a Yes vote is understandable. Nothing irritates politicians more than being beaten at their own game, and Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and Labour have long regarded the manipulation of Irish attitudes towards the European project as their preserve. Yet, having lost the argument and the vote last June, the main political parties promised to start taking seriously the reservations that the majority of Irish people evidently have about the increasingly federalist, undemocratic and unaccountable direction in which the EU appears to be headed by stealth.

The sub-committee’s work was supposed to be part of that engagement, contributing to “an open, comprehensive and sincere debate”. Far from doing so, however, its report portrays every option other than ratification of the treaty in another referendum as an appalling vista. Ireland’s banishment from the EU is repeatedly depicted as a possibility, even though EU treaties stipulate that this couldn’t happen without the acquiescence of Irish voters.

Many of us who voted against Lisbon are nowhere near as exercised about the treaty as the zealots on either the Yes or No side. We understand it contains positive proposals for reform of an enlarged EU. But we also wonder why its wording is so impenetrable, and have reason to suspect there is much casuistry hidden between the lines. Some EU mandarins, after all, boast of their prowess at pulling the wool over the eyes of the European electorate about their true plans for the union.

Since Ireland was the only country to hold a referendum on Lisbon, and since we were told it wouldn’t be implemented without our say-so, we attempted to treat the debate as seriously as possible. It was easy to dismiss the objections of extremists on the No side, such as the Chicken- Lickens who claimed ratification would result in conscription to a European army.

However, something interesting happened when more reasonable queries were raised about the treaty: its most ardent champions had no answers. They resorted instead to waffle and scare stories about the apocalyptic doom awaiting poor auld Ireland if we dared defy their wishes.

The Oireachtas sub-committee’s report provides more of the same. It will do little to change the minds of voters who are suspicious of — rather than implacably opposed to — the Lisbon treaty.

Moreover, amid the relentless lip service about addressing the democratic deficit between Irish people and EU institutions, a nagging question refuses to go away: if Irish and European politicians are so interested in democracy, why don’t they just respect the decision of the voters?

.....
FIANNA FÁIL MEP Brian Crowley has become embroiled in a diplomatic row with Czech president Vaclav Klaus while on a European Parliament trip to the Czech Republic.

Mr Crowley, who travelled to Prague yesterday for meetings with the Czech government, accused Mr Klaus of insulting the Irish people during his recent trip to Ireland.

"I told him what he did in Ireland on his recent State visit was an insult to the Irish people and myself personally," said Mr Crowley, who was one of several presidents of parliamentary groups who met Mr Klaus ahead of the Czech presidency of the EU.

"We don't want interference from outside about how we conduct our electoral business.

"It's up to the Irish people how we move forward," said Mr Crowley, who accused the Czech president of being deliberately provocative by attending a dinner hosted by Libertas chief Declan Ganley, a key No campaigner in the Lisbon referendum.

In reply, Mr Klaus told Mr Crowley that his comments were something reminiscent of what one would hear under Soviet dictatorship.

He said he had no regrets about his visit.

Green Party president Daniel Cohn-Bendit also strongly criticised Mr Klaus at the meeting over his relationship with Mr Ganley and his scepticism about climate change.

He also presented Mr Klaus with an EU flag at the meeting, a gesture that was angrily refused by the deeply Eurosceptic leader.

The combative meeting between the heads of the European Parliament's political groups and the Czech president provoked a terse response from the president's office.

"Mr Crowley's comments on the president's visit to Ireland were, well, peculiar," said Jiri Weigl, head of Mr Klaus's office.

"Mr Cohn-Bendit took his visit to the Prague castle as a mere provocation. I have to confess that such a tone and style of behaviour haven't been heard among those walls for the last 10 year. It's regrettable."

[dahamsta]

That kind of idiocy is hardly going to ingratiate the incumbents to the incoming presidency.

You'd wonder do any of them read the newspaper, given that the irony of these retarded comments has been pointed out multiple times in the mainstream media.

adam

[mypost]

More threats....


Unattributed content. Read the rules (http://foot.ie/showthread.php?p=431900#post431900).

The economic state of a country is very important, but it's level of democracy and sovereignty is even more so.

We've had a referendum and delivered a verdict. Having another one on the same document, is an outrage to the democracy of this state, and it will be resolutely opposed. :mad:

[Poor Student]

The country will then be exiled to the European Economic Area, a tiny EU annexe that currently comprises Norway, Liechtenstein and bankrupt Iceland. Alongside our new partners, we will form the world’s puniest international alliance: the axis of frostbite.

The prospect of Ireland being forced to join this undesirably exclusive club...

What an odd suggestion. The EEA isn't a 3 nation group in itself, it's an organisation of 30 states of which we are already part. Strange scaremongering piece.

[mypost]

You can add the Swiss in there too.

The thing is, Ireland won't be kicked out of the EU for a No vote. Charlie McCreevy gave a refreshingly honest analysis of the situation in an interview with Hot Press during the week, where he confirmed same.

But that won't stop the blatant lieing and scaremongering from the Yes camp, that we'll be isolated/excluded from the EU, if we disobey them again. :rolleyes:

[Poor Student]

You can add the Swiss in there too.

Seems you don't understand the EEA either. Switzerland is not a part.

[mypost]

That kind of idiocy is hardly going to ingratiate the incumbents to the incoming presidency.

You'd wonder do any of them read the newspaper, given that the irony of these retarded comments has been pointed out multiple times in the mainstream media.

adam

The link is below but there appears to be a problem opening it, so for the moment, the full text is here:

--------------------------------------


Unattributed content. Read the rules.

[Student Mullet]

I love this quote:


President Vaclav Klaus: I did not compare you with the Soviet Union, I did not mention the words "Soviet Union". I only said that I have not experienced such an atmosphere, such style of debate in the past 19 years in the Czech Republic, really.

[pete]

But that won't stop the blatant lieing and scaremongering from the Yes camp, that we'll be isolated/excluded from the EU, if we disobey them again. :rolleyes:

Who has said that? There has been almost no discussion of the Lisbon Treaty in Irish political circles in recent months. :confused:

[OneRedArmy]

More threats....



The economic state of a country is very important, but it's level of democracy and sovereignty is even more so.

We've had a referendum and delivered a verdict. Having another one on the same document, is an outrage to the democracy of this state, and it will be resolutely opposed. :mad:Woah there... The Constitution that you so dearly cling to clearly allows for multiple referenda on the same subject and there are lots of examples where this has happened in the recent past (including your beloved Nice Treaty).

So where's the problem? Why are you denying the Irish people's right?

Laughable...

[SMorgan]

Mr Crowley would be only too happy accept outside interference when its in support of the Lisbon Treaty. How many outside interests have interferred in support of the Treaty?

What really makes me laugh is the acceptance by the Yes side that they ran a poor campaign, last time out, yet from the utterances I've been hearing, they plan to run the exact same campaign with the same mud slinging and lies, next time round. On RTE radio at lunchtime on Saturday Quinn was on about how the No side had lied during the campaign on matters such as conscription yet in the very side breath he said that the rest of Europe would move on without Ireland if we voted No, which was the biggest lie of all. Europe can't move on if any country rejects the Treaty.

[pete]

Woah there... The Constitution that you so dearly cling to clearly allows for multiple referenda on the same subject and there are lots of examples where this has happened in the recent past (including your beloved Nice Treaty).

Divorce & Abortion being the obvious examples.

[mypost]

The Constitution that you so dearly cling to clearly allows for multiple referenda on the same subject and there are lots of examples where this has happened in the recent past (including your beloved Nice Treaty).

Why are you denying the Irish people's right?

Laughable...

In a democracy, you get one shot at an election every 5 years, and a government is formed. You get one shot at a referendum and a decision is made. It's not a multiple choice vote. In a democracy, you're morally and practically obliged to accept the will of the people, whether the bounce of the ball goes your way or not. There can, but shouldn't be any going back.


Europe can't move on if any country rejects the Treaty.

Europe will move on, under Nice.

[SMorgan]

Europe will move on, under Nice.


Absolutely. But not without Ireland and that's my point.

[superfrank]

Can anyone say for certain that Ireland is the only country NOT to ratify the treaty?

[micls]

You get one shot at a referendum and a decision is made. It's not a multiple choice vote. In a democracy, you're morally and practically obliged to accept the will of the people, whether the bounce of the ball goes your way or not. There can, but shouldn't be any going back.


.


So basically you think that in a democracy people shouldnt be allowed to change their minds?

For example divorce, you think for ever more we should not have divorce because it was voted against the first time?

[Bald Student]

Can anyone say for certain that Ireland is the only country NOT to ratify the treaty?

The Czech Republic hasn't yet either. Their supreme court had to decide whether a referendum was needed over there. They decided last week that it wasn't so there'll be a vote in their parliament soon.

[mypost]

So basically you think that in a democracy people shouldnt be allowed to change their minds?

For example divorce, you think for ever more we should not have divorce because it was voted against the first time?

Divorce is a national issue, and was always open to change, much like the rules on abortion. The last referendum on the abortion laws was in 2002, which the government lost. They had to respect the result, not go running off to the polls again within a couple of years to change it.

European treaties are different beasts altogether. It's not just a national issue, the result of it affects 26 other countries, and if the current one is passed, there is no get-out clause. This treaty is a constitution as well, and that constitution would be the one we're working with, not our own one anymore. Any further treaties will simply amend the ones currently in use, whether they are to our benefit or not.

[pete]

Looking very likely that Lisbon II will be held next Autumn. Will be changed to ensure all countries retain EU Commissioner i.e. 27+ Commissioners. Haven't heard if other changes...

[micls]

Divorce is a national issue, and was always open to change, much like the rules on abortion. The last referendum on the abortion laws was in 2002, which the government lost. They had to respect the result, not go running off to the polls again within a couple of years to change it.

European treaties are different beasts altogether. It's not just a national issue, the result of it affects 26 other countries, and if the current one is passed, there is no get-out clause. This treaty is a constitution as well, and that constitution would be the one we're working with, not our own one anymore. Any further treaties will simply amend the ones currently in use, whether they are to our benefit or not.

So who decides what we get to change our mind about? You?

The fact that it affects other countries is irrelevant to our rights as per the constitution of our democracy

[mypost]

Looking very likely that Lisbon II will be held next Autumn. Will be changed to ensure all countries retain EU Commissioner i.e. 27+ Commissioners.

Not remotely near good enough.

Martin and Cowen going on and on this week about "listening and responding to the concerns of our electorate" from the vote. We only had one simple message from the vote. Bit like the song.

"No, no, never". :D

[OneRedArmy]

Not remotely near good enough.

Martin and Cowen going on and on this week about "listening and responding to the concerns of our electorate" from the vote. We only had one simple message from the vote. Bit like the song.

"No, no, never". :DYour post is conflicting.

In the first sentence you suggest the concessions aren't enough to secure a yes vote. Which indicates that you are opening to voting again subject to concessions being enough.

Yet the rest of the post indicates that there shouldn't be another referendum under any circumstances.

As mentioned previously on the thread, you are about as consistent as Declan Ganley.

[pete]

Your post is conflicting.

In the first sentence you suggest the concessions aren't enough to secure a yes vote. Which indicates that you are opening to voting again subject to concessions being enough.

Yet the rest of the post indicates that there shouldn't be another referendum under any circumstances.

As mentioned previously on the thread, you are about as consistent as Declan Ganley.

Got to agree with that. You get some people who say they are pro EU but when asked what changes they want in the Lisbon Treaty they don't want any.

Politically Cowen has to get changes for Lisbon II to be run. Not sure if EU Commissioner would be enough.

[mypost]

Your post is conflicting.

In the first sentence you suggest the concessions aren't enough to secure a yes vote. Which indicates that you are opening to voting again subject to concessions being enough.

Yet the rest of the post indicates that there shouldn't be another referendum under any circumstances.

As mentioned previously on the thread, you are about as consistent as Declan Ganley.

:confused:

I'm not, and never was open to voting again.

The point made is, if that's the best concession they could squeeze out of Brussels*, that is not addressing the general electorate's concerns, and they will not change their mind as a result.

*Getting guarantees/declarations on other issues are legally useless, and can be changed at any time.

[OneRedArmy]

Despite Mypost's vehement objections, it looks like a re-vote is inevitable.

Expect the Yes campaign to use the carrot of the concession of keping own Commissioner (who still isn't mandated to vote in Ireland's interest) and the "stick" of the plight of Iceland (and the impending plight of the UK) as countries not within the EU inner circle and suffering because of it, as leverage.

I somehow think mandatory conscription and abortion won't feature as strongly this time around.

Here's hoping (against my better judgement) the campaign will get down to the real issues this time.

And Declan Ganley might even be forced to reveal his agenda and/or the source of his funding.

[pete]

I somehow think mandatory conscription and abortion won't feature as strongly this time around.

Surely Cowan require the EU to sign a legal guarantee that everything we are scared of won't be forced on us covertly?

It is a joke looking for legal guarantee of neutrality again. Do people still think the EU has an agenda to conscript us Irish into a fictional army & fictional war. Of course they need us so badly have to trick us via EU Treaty :rolleyes:

[OneRedArmy]

It is a joke looking for legal guarantee of neutrality again. Do people still think the EU has an agenda to conscript us Irish into a fictional army & fictional war. Of course they need us so badly have to trick us via EU Treaty :rolleyes:Its a three stage process.

1) They take away "our" Commissioner.

2) With no protection from our Commissioner, they conscript our menfolk to fight an unjust war.

3) They force our womenfolk to have abortions. Since all the men of age are away fighting the unjust war, I'm not exactly sure how the women get pregnant, but most probably they are raped by immigrants from new accession states.

[corkboy360]

This will never be the peoples choice they will just keep running treaties until the people of Ireland vote yes.

[mypost]

Expect the Yes campaign to use the "stick" of the plight of Iceland (and the impending plight of the UK) as countries not within the EU inner circle and suffering because of it, as leverage.

We're suffering now, from the financial crisis. Contrary to the government's view, we were not sheltered by being part of the EU or Euro for well documented reasons. In any case, Lisbon is not about money, it's about power and control. The strengthening of it at EU level and the weakening of it here. Ratifying the Lisbon treaty won't boost the economy. It hasn't in countries far bigger than us that have ratified, so it isn't going to boost it here either.

[OneRedArmy]

Contrary to the government's view, we were not sheltered by being part of the EU or Euro for well documented reasons. Whatever about the rest of your post this is plain wrong.

If the punt was still in existance we would be in a very similar position to Iceland. A small, open economy, over-borrowed and reliant on foreign investment at all levels. There's a strong chance the UK is going to be forced into the Euro so what would've made us different?

You've said its well documented that we weren't sheltered, show me where?