Printable View
The Irish Times was one of the most incredibly biased sources on the Lisbon Treaty and they've been digging up all sorts of non-reasons to whinge since the vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by jebus
Those words on the environment are nothing but lip service. A desperate attempt to get the green vote. Like the Charter of Fundamental rights (only even more so) they are meaningless platitudes without any legal obligation for anyone to do anything.
And the BBC? The Irish Times is in myopinion the finest media outlet we have in this country, they may show bias when the majority of the writers think something is right (there was a minority of rights who advocated No), but I don't think they play around with the facts to push their pointsQuote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
We could sit hear and say democracy is lip service, that the general populace have never, and will never have any real say in anything that gets done in any country in this world. Politicians rarely sign up to legal promises, but at least having them talk about the environment, especially when climate change isn't the buzz word of the moment, is encouraging. Certainly more encouraging than pretending that the people will someday rise up and attempt to have a real say (that days been and past I'm afraid), and certainly more encouraging than a bunch of Little Irelanders pretending that we can somehow go it alone in the world economyQuote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
Not exactly saying much though. The BBC? Media today get their news from the same sources.Quote:
Originally Posted by jebus
/Climate change. World leaders have been talking about it for years, nothing concrete has been achieved. There have been thousands of words poured forth from the mouths of people a lot more well meaning than the Lisbon architects. Do you think six more words puts the issue at tipping point? Scant reason to vote for the treaty.
Bingo, we have a winner.....Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
There is no concession necessary on corporation tax as it is in the same category as conscription into the EU army, i.e. not currently within the remit of the EU to alter and not within the remit post Lisbon.
Yet another person who believed Coir and the loonies at the expense of reading the Treaty.
What right?Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
Why should people be given a right to vote on the treaty when many of them will misinterpret it exactly as you and many other Irish people have?
Even though I voted Yes at the moment I would not like to see a re-run. However as a country we need to assess how this affects us in the EU (can they proceed without us?) & where our interests lie.
The more I read this thread I find that some No voters would reject the Treaty in any shape & likely have rejected previous Treaties. I can't believe any one would even discuss leaving the EU as that would be insanity.
It has been a long time since the EU has only been involved in economic issues. We have had an EU Parliament & laws have been created at EU level as far as I can remember so no chance we are to wipe out the last 20+ years.
No I haven't misinterpreted it. Your arrogance that only "experts" (oh those ones who said you'd have to be insane to read the whole Treaty?) should have a say on this, portrays you as an authoritarian enemy of democracy. I don't know if thats how you see yourself but thats how you look.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
What gives you the right to judge my interpretation? Sarkozy admitted that under the terms of Lisbon he would be pushing for a European Army. IBEC told their members to vote Yes on the basis that it facilitated Privatisation on a bigger scale than previously of public services. Several high European figures (quoted in previous texts) admitted to deliberately pulling the wool over people's eyes. Its all there in black and white. So who misinterpreted what? Did they pull the wool over your eyes too or do you think that sort of behavior has any place in a free society?
Anyone who looks at the Lisbon Treaty as a stand alone document has already misinterpreted it before starting to read it. Firstly it bust be read in the context of the original EU Constitution. It is an ammendment to this and sometimes it doesn't tell you what they are amending. You have to look for it. Secondly it has to be put in the context of all the treaties that have gone before it since Maastricht since it builds upon these. Thirdly you must look at the fact that interpretation of which articles have precedence in the case where they conflict is the property of the European Court of Justice which sees the "right" of "competition" (these are in exclamation marks for a reason) as above all others. Take the charter for example (which has been in place since 2000 - its not new, the LT just reaffirmed it). The Laval and Ruffert Judgments showed clearly that the view of the ECJ is that the charters "rights" are lesser than the right of "competition" and "free trade".
Regardless of any of this, if the Irish government, Sarkozy, Merkel, Berlusconi or any of these people were so concerned with workers rights, the environment or anything else in this Treaty that is supposed to be progressive, they could walk into the Dail and their various national parliaments and pass legislation to that effect. These protocols were specifically put there to remove attention from the myriad negativities in the Treaty that they didn't want us see, and that to these "leaders" were the most important parts that took precedence over all else.
Hardly seeing as how I never looked at one piece of literature Cóir (or Libertas for that matter) produced :rolleyes: Your eagerness to jump on any little thing you misinterpret in one of my posts shows that you have no argument to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Just back on the Environment thing:
The whole shebang...Quote:
Environmental NGO welcomes No vote
Irish No vote represents progress for Europe
Ecologistas en Acción
June 13th, 2008
Ecologistas en Acción wish to express our satisfaction at the victory of the NO in the Irish referendum on the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. It is a victory which represents progress towards the realization of a more sustainable, democratic, social and peaceful Europe.
Ecologistas en Acción have already made public on many occasions that the Lisbon Treaty exemplifies a EU which is unsustainable, anti-democratic, anti-social, and militarist.
It is unsustainable as witnessed by its growing reliance on nuclear energy and its inability to fulfil the Kyoto Protocol without having recourse to market mechanisms…
Its is antidemocratic as witnessed by the fact that a treaty as wide-ranging as Lisbon was only submitted to referendum in a single country.
Absolute classic!!Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Of course you had the whole thing figured out. So when the architect of the treaty said that issues that people would find distasteful would be hidden and concealed within the text, you knew what those issues were and still voted yes.
Just out of interest, why have elections at all? Won't people "misinterpret" the party's economic policies. You're wasted here in Ireland. There a number of dictatorships around the world that could use a man of your talents.
If the result had gone the other way, the No side would have been told to respect the democratic decision of the Irish electorate. Now the result didn't go the politicians way, they don't wish to respect it. All "respect the result" talk from them is hot air, unless they rule out another referendum. 860,000 people have sent their message to Brussels, and they represent the wishes of most voters across Europe, who were refused the opportunity to vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
The failure to respect a democratic vote from here, would automatically mean a second No from mypost, should the gun be put to our head again at a later date. We will not be ordered how to vote, by insiders or outsiders. The UK surrendered their sovereignty and democratic rights to Brussels last night, it's important that we keep ours.
One thing this has proved is the veto is effectively useless for small countries anyway (now whether that helps the Yes or No side I'm not sure). The other 26 decide to harmonise tax, and we don't like? Tough, take it or leave. However, the French seem to be rowing back on their position of harmonisation and consilidation in the wake of the No vote, and are now talking about on VAT rates.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
That's been obvious from the start - there's a hard No vote, which has been around the same for all referenda. This is why the higher turnout is taken as being good for the Yes side, as the numbers don't change. That's what changed with this vote - relatively high turnout, but a high no vote. How soft is the increase in the No vote is the thing they need time to find out, and they need idiots in Europe to shut the fook up to stop hardening that vote. Which they seem to have belated done.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
btw Fair play to Avril Doyle yesterday in the European Parliament.
Do you honestly believe tax harmonisation is possible? I am sure some politicians across Europe want it but it cannot work in practice. Every country decides to raise its taxes differently but ultimately they have find it somewhere. I suppose Germans would not be keen on us having low Corporation tax rate at the same time they are paying us subsidy in the form of grants but those days will be gone soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
If France & Germany want to form a joint army who are we to stop them? The UK did not want to join the Euro but did not stop the rest of the EU. The are countless agreements between sub groups of the EU which countries opt out of if they wish & has always been the case.
but is this not the point of the lisbon treaty? to harmonise the working of the eu? my impression was that it was to basically roll all previous treaties into one. i just didnt like the way they intended to go about it. i think the principle is sound, i just dont agree with the method.
By harmonisation, they're talking about harmonisation of taxation levels. One of the scare tactics the No campaign were spreading was that voting Yes meant the EU could up your tax rate, something which was categorically denied by the Yes side and the Referendum Commission, and grudgingly accepted by the No side; that didn't mean they took down the posters saying exactly that though. Indeed, some of them are still outside my window, one if these days Im going to have to borrow a ladder.Quote:
Originally Posted by shantykelly
It didn't roll any previous treaties into one. Indeed, it did the very opposite; it didnt actually work as a legal document itself, but as a series of amendments to previous treaties so that they would remain standalone and valid.Quote:
my impression was that it was to basically roll all previous treaties into one. i just didnt like the way they intended to go about it. i think the principle is sound, i just dont agree with the method.
I don't know but it was/ is clearly on the French agenda (consolidation probably more likely). It is clear we'd be relying on one of the larger states also having a problem with it though, as our (smaller countries) veto is proving to be worthless. It's probably off topic, as it isn't really about Lisbon, bar what the response says about the value of the veto.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Proving? A few politicians and a few media sources make some disgruntled noises and suddenly its proven our veto is worthless? Apart from the referendum not being a veto issue in the relevant sense, nobody has forced anything on us and I'd love to meet the lawyer who can make EU legislation go away, in terms of ignoring a veto. In fact, if he exists, put him in touch with the UK government as they'll love him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Since the result, all we've heard is that the other 26 would progress. Unless that was blatant scaremongering from those who support the yes side, by the EU politicians and by the media?
Progress? What does that mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
A couple of individuals of the ilk of Lucinda Creighton have made petulant noises. The media have their own priorities, printing outlandish things is one of them.
The leader of our country is in Brussels today today to tell the EU that we need time to sort out our own response to the situation. Other FF politicians have said that Ireland won't be bullied into doing anything.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhgbgbgbkfoj/
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhgbgbkfqlid/
Meanwhile, self-appointed victors in this, Sinn Fein, are unable to give a single reason for the success of the No campaign, and simply say that Cowen must negotiate a better deal, as if we've now got the EU by the nuts. Both extreme scenarios (yours, and Sinn Fein's) aren't realistic.
Did anyone actually respond to my comment about "No Plan B" I wonder?
Does nobody think it just a smidgeon odd that the politicans of Ireland and Europe claim to have absolutely no plans for the possibility we might vote No? Not one politician in Europe planned for this eventuality, apparently. Unless they're lying of course, which hardly seem better.
These are the people Yes voters want to hand more power to? Power to give themselves even more power on a regular basis?
I think I'll stick with the No for now, thanks all the same.
adam
They're just unbelievably arrogant.
The Yes campaigning showed that in the run-up.
Who said "No Plan B"? I'd imagine they were referring to the total lack of a discernible, logical set of reasons for the No result.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
I'd imagine Plan B is to sort out what we actually want, present that to the EU, and see if changes can be made that suit everyone.Quote:
Does nobody think it just a smidgeon odd that the politicans of Ireland and Europe claim to have absolutely no plans for the possibility we might vote No? Not one politician in Europe planned for this eventuality, apparently. Unless they're lying of course, which hardly seem better.
These are the people Yes voters want to hand more power to? Power to give themselves even more power on a regular basis?
I think I'll stick with the No for now, thanks all the same.
adam
We don't have agreement on what we actually want yet, so the Taoiseach is telling the EU we need time to reflect.
Blatant lying and demands that we milk the result for everything we can get isn't arrogance? If the reality were mypost's anti-EU, anti-immigration, anti-everything views, or BohsPartisan's dreams of a vague socialist overthrow of the oligarchy, it almost wouldn't be too bad. Instead the reality is that the fallout of this is soundbites around europe of Gerry Adams recommending we hold the EU hostage like a gigantic Shergar or Ben Dunne.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
I was talking about the EU politicians.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
I'd have to wonder about the attention someone is paying to what's actually going on, if they're asking who said "no plan b". Take your pick. Brian Cowen was quoted as saying it on Newstalk. I heard Dick Roche say "there's no Plan C" myself on the same station, which was funny in and of itself. Various leaders and representatives of European countries, the Commission, etc, etc. Perhaps less of the righteous indignation, ranting and abuse and more of the listening might help.
adam
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7453839.stm
Quote:
EU mulls options after Irish No vote
But there was no answer. "There is no plan B!" we were told.
To be honest, it began to sound like a rather tired refrain. And - surprise, surprise - it turns out that in fact there are a number of possible plan Bs.
Adam, I'm not surprised the Yes side publicly said there was no plan B in the run up to the vote, as to have a plan B you are admitting that you could be defeated, which would have almost been a self-fulfilling prophecy.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
That said, I would've expected them, privately, to have a plan B in their back pockets to launch following defeat, particularly in the weeks running up to the vote when it was clear the vote, whilst undecided, definately wasn't going to be a resounding Yes.
I don't think you'll find many people arguing the Yes side come out of this with much credit at all. If Cowen had been in the job any longer I think this could have been terminal for him, and it may still work out that way.
But personally, I view that as a separate issue as to whether to vote Yes or No.
The reaction from the different eurpoean countries to the no vote seem very mixed and often contradictory to me.
Initially the French and Germans went on the attack saying that Ireland must sort out her problem or get left behind. It seems that someone has had a word in their ear since and that's been toned right down. At around the same time the British were saying that Ireland won't be bullied or left behind. Now the Commission has taken a middle road and said that we'll be given a few months of space to decide what we want to do next.
If there was a 'Plan C' I would have expected to see a better level of coordination. The various european politicians seem to me to be making this up as they go along.
I'm not talking about before the referendum, I'm talking about afterwards. Follow the link in my post, read the articles, check the dates.
"No Plan B" says one of two things:
- I'm incompetent.
- I'm a liar.
There are no other interpretations.
adam
Interesting that the Czech President Vaclav Klaus is happy with the vote - "It is a victory of freedom and reason over artificial elitist projects and European bureaucracy." I assume they haven't ratified the treaty yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bald Student
*notices that he's nodding his head in full agreement on all points again*Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
No plan B can mean many things:
3. There is little or nothing to change or negotiate on.
4. You were given your chance. Live with your choice.
In the circumstances of those determined to vote no regardless, we should be let rot/live with our choice.
Still an abhorrent embarrassment* of a result, a week on.
*For want of more offensive terms at the cost of accuracy
There are plenty of other interpretations. For starters, its not a case of 'shall we go down road A, or down road B'. We're going down road A regardless, but a bridge needs to be built to get there (sorry, tacky metaphors seem the order of the day). Given that the No side have not ever tried to present a reasonable alternative (mass revolt excluded) to solving the ills of the current EU structures, they have not presented a 'plan B'. That doesn't mean we're in Limbo.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
I always find it funny when people like a president give out about 'the elite'.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
He's a Man of the People, clearly.
I'll go for the former.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
On an unrelated point, I can't get over the arrogance of some Irish groups who are encouraging other nations not to ratify, based on the decision of the Irish people to vote No.
Does it not occur to anyone that national Governments represent their own citizens? If you follow this, then the other 26 have no option but to ratify as they have no mandate whatsoever to reference the Irish result.
Well, no - they can reject it of their own volition, which is a separate (though admittedly unlikely) option. Ireland's vote being irrelevant in the context of other countries' votes means it doesn't affect it either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
They had no mandate to ratify either. It wasn't explicitly part of their election manifestos.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
The rules state that if one nation doesn't ratify the treaty falls. Clear enough. Couldn't the governments of Europe be using the time more constructively, say maybe implementing some of the much vaunted "positive" aspects of the treaty that do't require an EU treaty. I look forward to all these friends of the people implementing generous Charters of Workers rights and getting down to solving the problem of climate change.
Or maybe they could ask their citizens if they actually want the Treaty?
Does anyone know for a fact that the EU cannot proceed with some aspects of Lisbon without us?
It is possible the term Pan B could be used two ways
- plan B to implement Lisbon.
- plan B for a new Treaty.
I think it is natural that the EU look towards Ireland. It is up to them to decide if a second vote happens, they just need to hear from Cowan what he plans to do as they can't look at other plans until then. Still think this is a massive test for him both domestically and internationally. He will be able to delay for a while because the main opposition is on the Yes side but ultimately he has to make a decision. Choose the wrong one & he may never recover.
It's been mentioned, but then so has a two-speed Europe, with countries opting out of continuing integration if they want/are told to. Don't know how real an option that is though.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
The last thing the EU wants is a two-tier membership. It may start off with Ireland being the founder member, but I think the EU would be fearful that other countries would actively seek the slow lane option. The last thing the EU wants is a top tier with 15 counties and a lower tier with 12 counties. This two-tier issue is rolled out every single time there is a major disagreement in the Union. Apparently the UK were going to be in an effective lower tier because they didn't sign up to the Euro and the European Central Bank. No sign of that!!
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
I voted for the Nice Treaty, which was pro-EU, and pro-immigration, as has been seen since. :rolleyes:
I'm not anti-EU, I'm anti this constitution, and have been long before the original one was agreed, and will continue to be until it's consigned to the bin, where it should be after we declared it null and void last week.
Yesterday, Napoleon announced that without this treaty, further enlargement wasn't possible.
Great. Pity your mate Chirac didn't realise that 5 years ago, and not allow the Eastern bloc in, then there wouldn't be the need for this airhead idea of a "constitution" in the first place. The EU invited them all in, so it's their problem if they can't run the Union "more efficiently" as a result, not Ireland's.
Shut...door...horse...bolted
We havent decided what we're going to do about it, have we? The Taoiseach has told them we need til October to sort the situation out. Essentially, we haven't passed the treaty but we haven't ruled out that amendments or a declaration like that in Seville dismissing all the lies of the No campaign might see it actually being passed. Now, I don't think that will happen. But its within the realms of possibility so as long as we're humming and hawing, why do you want to take away other country's right to pass it, or as looks like in the Czech R., block it. It doesn't matter if 26 countries pass it, it can't happen if we never say Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Thats a turn up for the books. Cryogenics, or what?Quote:
Yesterday, Napoleon announced that without this treaty, further enlargement wasn't possible.
ooo am I part of the political class :eek:Quote:
Great. Pity your mate Chirac
Poles out, Ireland for the Irish, and so on. Funny what an economic slowdown can do to people.Quote:
didn't realise that 5 years ago, and not allow the Eastern bloc in, then there wouldn't be the need for this airhead idea of a "constitution" in the first place. The EU invited them all in, so it's their problem if they can't run the Union "more efficiently" as a result, not Ireland's. Shut...door...horse...bolted
Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
Immigrations a non issue. With the economy going the way that will slow down too. What is an issue is the super exploitation of migrant labour.