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