Printable View
Well I think the whole "we will lose a representative european minister" and the "we will lose out financially" bull that was being fed to us in every national newspaper, television station and radio programme was far more significant than scaring a few conservative aul christians:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by celticV3
Not how it's been recorded in history though:
^^from Irish Times in July, link to clickQuote:
Libertas, the anti-treaty entity run by businessman Declan Ganley, spent more on commercial advertisements than all the political parties put together, according to the figures.
Also, bear in mind that Libertas today announced that they're running candidates in the European elections in as many Member States as they can. Ganley is touting those elections as countries' mini-referenda on the Lisbon Treaty. Hardly a publicity-prude thing to say. (more at libertas.eu)
That's the machine's structure and engine, the facts.
Nothing overly wrong with publicity per se. But IMO Libertas's campaign is predicated entirely on scare tactics: the oil driving the engine is dirty, there's very little of substance proffered by Ganley or his minions. It's all about the lack of transparency and accountability of Brussels, yet (and leaving aside the seeming hypocrisy of Ganley saying that) in the experience of my ears they haven't offered any examples of how that has manifested or how it might do so - what practical examples are there of the EU acting against the populace's wishes, or in the future, how the structure might be ameliorated (Ganley claims he doesn't want the disintegration of the Union). "The whole blasted thing is corrupt, damn it!" is the message I'm receiving. Seems to ignore worthwhile issues; and instead negatively prey on people's fears rather than positively appeal to our intellect.
It's not a joke, it's what we're entitled to as an EU member state, together with the entitlement to hold the Presidency with full autonomy for 6 months. The current plan per Lisbon, is for a permanent unelected EU President for 2.5 years. It's a non-starter imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
We have had the Nice Treaty for 6, going on 7 years. It allowed for the expansion of the bloc from the then 15 members, which I backed. It has worked very well, without compromising national sovereignty or democracy. There's no better alternative available at the present time.
Thanks for giving a proper answer pete.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Just because we're entitled to it doesn't make it right!Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Nice hasn't worked well in the current financial crisis. This is pretty much a consensus view of the media, left, right and centre.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
I voted Yes last time, but i'm going to vote no this time, mainly for the fact that after refusing this treaty it's back less then a year later(time?) with no changes.....
They allow us to have some clout and influence in the EU. We have our entitlements as a member state, and we're under no obligation to give any of them up.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
The financial crisis however bad, is temporary. Each government reserves the right to decide what policies they should adopt in order to recover. Some have decided to stimulate their economies, others will make cutbacks on public spending, ours have decided to raise taxes.Quote:
Nice hasn't worked well in the current financial crisis.
Lisbon if ratified, is permanent, regardless of economic and other political conditions.
They're not there to be used in the interests of the country, they're there for the interests of the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Someone put it brilliantly: There is no such thing as an Irish comissioner, there's just a comissioner that happens to be Irish.
If the No idiots (who voted no on that reason) out there realised this, they might not be so outraged.
We're still entitled to it regardless.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
pete's post summed it up for me. There's no need for 27 comissioners. It's just adding to the EU bureaucracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Saying we don't need 27 commissioners, is like saying a small country like here, doesn't need 83 TD's to form a government. :rolleyes: If that was the case, FF* would be in single-party power permanently.
*They always have the highest amount of party seats, even in opposition.
mypost, if we accept that you voted 'no' because of serious reservations you held about the benefits this treaty had for the welfare and autonomy of Ireland, then we can assume you are not against new treaties as a rule, but rather you will weigh up a treaty on the merits of that treaty?
Is that fair to say?
Dara O brien had some great comments about this 'Any war where they need to conscript from 470million people is a war we need to be apart of, we cant just tell teh little green men that we're neutrl and we had a vote ':DQuote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
It would be fair. Any treaty though would have to preserve our entitlements as stated above, in order for me to back it. That Presidency issue is not just important for us, but also vital in case the current President's relations with other countries are strained at any given time.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Round Two has been regrettably announced by Cowen and co. Instead of putting his head on the block over domestic issues, he's decided to risk his career and credibility on getting Lisbon passed at considerable expense to the country's depleted resources. Best have it in September really. There's no point in a big recess during the summer, recalling parliament amid a reshuffle in the last week of September, then put everything on hold again in October over the EU Constitution.
But whenever it's called, we'll be ready to remind him what we said 6 months ago.
And we're entitled to vote by reforenda as many times as we want on whatever subject the Government of the day see fit.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Glad we cleared that up. That's one less ridiculous argument for you to use.
For what it is worth I think Lisbon II will probably pass. It is a year before thsi will be held & the voters will take their domestic frustrations out of the government in the Local & Euro elections.
While i think the legal guarantees are pathetic & embarrassing as a nation they will prevent the No side campaigning on those issues. If the NO side cannot campaign on EU Commissioner, Abortion or Neutrality what is left?
Permanent EU President for 2 1/2 years is a perfectly reasonable improvement to the structures of the EU. When a small nation like Ireland held the Presidency Bertie was awol on domestic issues for that time. We also need a figurehead of the Union as issues cannot be solved in 6 monthly cycles.
They'll make some other stuff up to scare us. The other side will probably do the same and we'll end up with a similar campaign as last time.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
The only thing that might make a change is the fact that Cowen's job will be on the line so FF might put their weight properly behind the campaign. But that's a double edged sword.
That's what most thought last time, until the boxes were opened.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Such as?? :confused:Quote:
When a small nation like Ireland held the Presidency Bertie was awol on domestic issues for that time.
They have been. See our role as President.Quote:
We also need a figurehead of the Union as issues cannot be solved in 6 monthly cycles.
Plenty left. How about;Quote:
While i think the legal guarantees are pathetic & embarrassing as a nation they will prevent the No side campaigning on those issues. If the NO side cannot campaign on EU Commissioner, Abortion or Neutrality what is left?
- The loss of our voting weights, the qmv system, workers rights?? or
- The refusal to respect Lisbon 1, the refusal to grant more countries referendums, the insulting by the "leader" of our electorate in calling another one here?? or maybe even
- The lies stated, aka "guarantees" which are not protocols, and therefore not legal, the "common defence" issues which still remain unchanged, and the point blank refusal to get a better deal for this country and for EU citizens??
That's just for starters. Take your pick. :)
If he thinks he's going to reverse the result of 33 constituencies last June, on the basis of one miserly concession, he can think again.
It is currently undemocratic that a person in Ireland has 14 times the voting power of a German person. Only correct we reduce that a bit. New QVM rules protect the power of small countries by ensuring need significant majority of both population & country numbers. large countries cannot push through issues. Workers rights? Without the EU we wouldn't need to worry about that as wouldn't have any jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
The EU is made up of sovereign nations governed by their own laws. We cannot force other countries to have referendums. I suppose the government would argue that they have addressed the concerns of people after Lisbon I.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Do you really think the EU want the Irish army so badly they have to trick us into it even using false legal guarantees? As said above if they need us so badly it would be a War we could not opt out as would be so big.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
We already participate with the EU force in Chad. The EU would better off peacekeeping in conflict zones without the restrictions of UN security council whims. We should be proud to be part of that.
Reminds me somewhat of the tactics employed by these lot back in the 90s:Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdom hoop
http://bellaciao.org/en/IMG/gif/PAdemoneyes.gif
Not all Germans live in Germany. Several million live in much smaller countries, several thousand more live here. Should they be punished for that? That's what you're advocating.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
They will if consisted of the biggest 5, who will constitute the required percentage on any issues.Quote:
New QVM rules protect the power of small countries by ensuring need significant majority of both population & country numbers. large countries cannot push through issues.
Manyof the multinational firms based here came from the USA, creating thousands of new jobs. With or without Lisbon, they'll still be coming here due to our location and tax rate advantages over other EU states.Quote:
Workers rights? Without the EU we wouldn't need to worry about that as wouldn't have any jobs.
Not under Lisbon. The requirements are common foreign, defence, security policies. The populations of the member states have a right to be asked if they agree with that scenario or not, not in just one country.Quote:
The EU is made up of sovereign nations governed by their own laws.
They addressed one concern. One that rated low on the reasons why the treaty was rejected.Quote:
I suppose the government would argue that they have addressed the concerns of people after Lisbon I.
The guarantees are not legal, the Irish army will still be required to aid other member states should they be attacked, and will have to improve military spending, both at a time when we can least afford it. So they have not addressed any neutrality concerns.Quote:
Do you really think the EU want the Irish army so badly they have to trick us into it even using false legal guarantees? As said above if they need us so badly it would be a War we could not opt out as would be so big.
Incorrect. Do you work for Libertas?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
QMV in Lisbon Treaty
To get 55% of the member states you would need at least France, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, Spain, Poland, Romania, The Netherlands, Belgium, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Portugal & Austria.Quote:
* 55% of the Member States must agree: (for example, while there are 27 Member States, 15 Member States must agree);
* those Member States supporting the decision must represent 65% of the EU population.
The change is actually better for small countries as there is currently no requirement for majority of member states just votes.
What countries have the most votes?? :D:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
We have very little power in the European Union, and a restricted number of political entitlements as a member state. It's important that we preserve them in order to remain an influential member of the Union.
Watched the TD and Senator statements from earlier in the year recently, and while there was a lot of huff and puff about Ireland been in "unchartered waters" and "isolated", there was little if any specific explanation about what exactly that meant.
Despite repeated declarations of "respecting the result" of the referendum from the Yes side, the general attitude was, "sure weren't we a bunch of thicks for voting No". :rolleyes: Senator Paschal Donoghue claimed that he felt "marginalised" and "feeling lonely" when the result was announced, and complained that his "social wealth" would be threatened as a result. He would later chair the sham EU Committee in the Autumn. With respect, Paschal Donoghue is not someone who is signing on, or living on €200 a week, or about to lose his home. That is what "feeling lonely", and "marginalised" is. There were just 6 speakers on the No side, 2 SF TD's and 4 Senators, including Shane Ross. Indeed it was Ross who made the best speech of all, indicating what the government would do with our corporation tax veto.
The Dail Statements were split into two parts, while the Seanad's commenced 5 hours into the day's proceedings. The speeches are all currently available here in the Dail/Seanad Webcast Playback section, dated 18 June last.
Who cares?
We gonna sign eventually;in no position to argue against ultimately........
More bullying, this time from the business class: :mad:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...842350072.htmlQuote:
"It sets up an unhealthy situation for Irish-based American companies to be operating its European operations from a place that has made clear its ambivalence to the European Union, American firms want certainty, to be secure that the operating conditions will not change after they relocate."
Fair enough, pay the higher tax rates in other countries then. Or to avoid it, go to India, a well-known politically stable EU country. :rolleyes:
You can't have it every way. Good luck.
I think that's the key point.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Good interview with Klaus in the "Prague Daily Monitor" here
A lot of media complaining that Klaus is now EU President, when he's not. Saying he is, is like saying Mary McAleese was/is President of the EU, when we get to hold it, when actually it's the Taoiseach instead.
Imo, it is also highly insulting to the Czechs, that Sarkosy invited himself to Egypt to try and sort out the latest Israel-Palestine crisis. What part of "you're no longer EU President" does he not understand?
The French have historically had close relationship to the region, but don't let the truth get in the way of a rant....Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
I'm aware of that, but it's the Czechs job to represent the EU on these matters now, not his.
I thought we didn't have an EU president?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Also, did he say specifically that he was representing the EU?
Has Sarkovzy claimed he is representing the EU?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
To be fair, either he is there as a representative of the EU, or he shouldn't be there at all without haveing ensured that what he's saying/offering is what the EU are saying/offering.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
He may have run it all by the EU already, I have no idea. But if he hasn't, I don't think that the president of an EU member state should be unilaterally doing what Sarkozy is doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
He didn't, and I never said he did.
There is no common EU foreign policy. Independent countries do as they please. France does not hold the Presidency anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
As pete says, there's no common EU foreign policy, so it's not like he's causing a policy conflict one way or another.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Well thats what you inferred with your bolded comment above.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
So are you just making it up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
I know this, but the EU does release statements on conflicts like the current conflict, and I just mean that member states should be careful that what an individual member state says doesn't undermine such statements or positions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
EDIT : I'm basing this on the assumption that an EU statement is supposed to be representative of an EU opinion or position, and therefore represents or includes the positions of the member states. If this is not the case, then forget everything I've said!
Which is my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Cowen on the warpath in the Mansion House yesterday, according to the Irish Independent.
It's called opposition, that politicians never like.Quote:
"Our membership of the union gives life to the aspirations of the First Dail. It is surprising, therefore, to hear some so consistently question our role within the union,"
Having only recently broken free from the grip of one Union, the first Dail had, almost certainly to the contrary, no aspirations of becoming part of another. This Dail however, are intent on doing whatever it takes to satisfy the European Union, rather than co-operate with the mandate it's own electorate gives them.