Lisbon Treaty

Dick Roche said last week, that HE didn´t want a "beauty parade" of candidates for the job.

Neither did I, Dick. All the more reason to oppose the bloody thing in the first place.

A Belgian most of us have never heard of, is now our President. He will speak for me and 500 million people with world leaders. Only those world leaders faced a ballot box, and were given a mandate to represent their electorates, to deal with the Belgian. Our President didn´t.

Oh, but we have McAleese you say. We do, but from Tuesday week, she is an irrelevance with no authority over us. She is nothing more than a bill signer.

Btw Biffo, any sign of those jobs that were subject to our approval of the EU Constitution? 2 months on, and we´re still waiting......

More info on our new President:

http://synonblog.dailymail.co.uk/200...a-country.html

It's from the Daily Mail- tells you all you need to know.

EU Province of Ireland v Strasbourg: Act 1

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1209/abortion.html

Act 2: Proposals for Brussels to pre-authorise our national budget.

Act 3: The "untouchable" that is Corporation Tax, touched.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0909/eu_tax.html

All just over 9 months since Lisbon came into force. The grip is tightening.

LOL Mypost got there before me. I was too lazy too do a search for this thread this morning!!!!
Im just waiting for all the jobs that the Lisbon vote will bring.................still waiting

Corpo tax should be raised anyway, it's a falacy that the multies are here cos we are such good and effecient workers. But I agree it's a pity we have to have our hand forced and moreover that the Government felt they could not get this passed with out telling lies.

Not sure the lies made the difference tbh, would still have been passed.

The government have been telling lies for the past three years. The public have accepted it by and large. Without the lies told, the most unpopular government in living memory wouldn't have got their treaty through.

Unfortunately, it's the likes of Moodys and Standard And Poors who are left to tell the truth about our jobs and our economy. And they didn't have a vote last year.

It's looking like the No voters did us a massive favour, provided that is we still have the opt out on anything to do with militarisation.

I voted Yes but on the basis that there were guarantees concerns of increased militarisation/NATO ties were completely unfounded. Today's news appears to be a disgusting betrayal.

So, thanks to those who had better foresight than myself and voted No :cool:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beavis

It's looking like the No voters did us a massive favour, provided that is we still have the opt out on anything to do with militarisation.

I voted Yes but on the basis that there were guarantees concerns of increased militarisation/NATO ties were completely unfounded. Today's news appears to be a disgusting betrayal.

So, thanks to those who had better foresight than myself and voted No :cool:.

---

Not really, I call it the blindingly obvious, thats of course unless you actually believed Brian Cowen and co........:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennocelt

Not really, I call it the blindingly obvious, thats of course unless you actually believed Brian Cowen and co........:rolleyes:

---

No I didn't believe our politicians. I believed the 'neutral' Election Commission (yes naive) and the EU. The EU have been propenents of good governance having contributed greatly to citizen rights in the country e.g. through the Aarhus Convention, and have been a generally positive influence here. On the basis of this background, particularly in their efforts to promote participatory democracy and the decentralisation of decision making within member states, I assumed the Lisbon Treaty was not a means of attaining greater control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beavis

I voted Yes but on the basis that there were guarantees concerns of increased militarisation/NATO ties were completely unfounded. Today's news appears to be a disgusting betrayal.

No I didn't believe our politicians. I believed the 'neutral' Election Commission (yes naive) and the EU. The EU have been propenents of good governance having contributed greatly to citizen rights in the country e.g. through the Aarhus Convention, and have been a generally positive influence here. On the basis of this background, particularly in their efforts to promote participatory democracy and the decentralisation of decision making within member states, I assumed the Lisbon Treaty was not a means of attaining greater control.

---

Act 4: Militarisation affected.

Lisbon was all about more control of states affairs. That's what has happened. All that crap about job creation, and ECB funding shortage was lies, and shown to be lies. Ireland hasn't gained as a result of it, the same crooks are running the show, the same problems remain unsolved, the people were lied to and they fell for it. We have no choice but to live with the damage the reversal of the June 2008 ballot has resulted in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

Act 4: Militarisation affected.

Lisbon was all about more control of states affairs. That's what has happened. All that crap about job creation, and ECB funding shortage was lies, and shown to be lies. Ireland hasn't gained as a result of it, the same crooks are running the show, the same problems remain unsolved, the people were lied to and they fell for it. We have no choice but to live with the damage the reversal of the June 2008 ballot has resulted in.

---

What have the EU actually done (as opposed to what has been talked about), that has negatively impacted Ireland, that they couldn't have done pre-Lisbon?

One year after the poll, Act 5 is unveiled:

Automatic fines for persistent GDP% budget deficits:

Quote:

---

The European Union executive outlined plans to prevent any repetition of Greece's debt crisis by making repeat deficit offenders deposit 0.2 per cent of their gross domestic product with Brussels.

The interest-bearing deposit would be converted into a fine unless the country in breach took effective action to cut the budget gap below EU limits.

If a country repeatedly ignored recommendations to rectify severe economic imbalances in wage, macroeconomic and fiscal policy, it would incur a yearly fine of 0.1 per cent of GDP until EU finance ministers decided corrective action had been taken.

---

http://www.smh.com.au/business/world...930-15xuz.html

We can neither afford harsher budget cuts, nor a fine for not meeting the criteria. Pre-Lisbon, small countries could block such measures by enough MEP's voting against them in Brussels. Now with the Post-Lisbon voting weights in force, the big countries behind this little ruse, rule the roost for everyone.

Meanwhile at home, we still wait for those promised Post-Lisbon jobs.........

Back despite popular demand:

http://home.thejournal.ie/hes-back-a...-life-2010-10/

Blatant kite flying. Everybody cross your fingers for a freak thunderstorm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

We can neither afford harsher budget cuts, nor a fine for not meeting the criteria.

---

Is the argument not that we can't afford not to cut the budget?

But I agree the proposed fine mechanism is nonsenical, not necessarily because of any Lisbon/bullying argument, but more because we actually were the best fiscally performing nation in the EU in good times. If the fining mechanism had been in place it would've been the Germans, French and Italians who would've been in trouble for most of the the previous decade. We only ran budget deficits as a consequence of our problems, it wasn't the cause.

Serious cause/effect understanding failure from the EU.

What they really need is a mechanism to stop asset bubbles forming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by culloty82

Back despite popular demand:

http://home.thejournal.ie/hes-back-a...-life-2010-10/

---

He really is a piece of work. All this country needs as well -another right wing-nut in the mix.

Currently in England but I was driving home from work yesterday and BBC4 had a piece on about the Germans saying Lisbon part 2 needs to be amended in order to provide for bailout biggy banks and government short falls. Obvioulsy the report made a big play on Ireland saying it would be unlikly be passed on the third time as it was sold on the second vote for jobs and security and since then there has been the unemployment crash, and talk about Ireland corpo rate being increased. So, what the storey boys?

As far as I know, any alteration to a treaty requires a referendum, but to add to the confusion, there's also an Article 48 in Lisbon that allows it to amend itself without the requirements of each country. So, if it's critical to Lisbon by completely changing it, we'll be voting, but if it's just seen as an add-on, we mightn't. A very grey area, but I'd say there'll be a Lisbon 3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by culloty82

As far as I know, any alteration to a treaty requires a referendum, but to add to the confusion, there's also an Article 48 in Lisbon that allows it to amend itself without the requirements of each country. So, if it's critical to Lisbon by completely changing it, we'll be voting, but if it's just seen as an add-on, we mightn't. A very grey area, but I'd say there'll be a Lisbon 3.

---

Yeah, appears if it isn't too big a change they may get away without Lisbon 3, and they'll try and avoid that at all costs. I've no doubt any change will at least be challenged by someone, so another bit of uncertainty to add to the mix!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by culloty82

As far as I know, any alteration to a treaty requires a referendum, but to add to the confusion, there's also an Article 48 in Lisbon that allows it to amend itself without the requirements of each country. So, if it's critical to Lisbon by completely changing it, we'll be voting, but if it's just seen as an add-on, we mightn't. A very grey area, but I'd say there'll be a Lisbon 3.

---

There won't be. Lisbon has been ratified by the Former Independent Republic Of Ireland. The treaty is self-amending, and the European Constitution takes precedence over ours. Therefore a referendum here is not required.