Printable View
Well said Calcio. the eastern block will look after the eastern block. I know the eurovision is a pretty novel way of demonstrating this but look at how we really have been excluded by the eastern block in that in recent years. being as we are on the western edge of europe we will be the most Isolated by this treaty
I like it...
"Justice for Dustin...Vote No!"
Now where did I leave that Black Marker and poster boardsQuote:
Originally Posted by DaveyCakes
If we're going to say that the Constitution being rejected in Holland and France is "this treaty being rejected twice", what about the 18 other countries that have ratified the constitution?Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
Don't let France bully us! Vote Yes!
[/mypost]
How many were subject to a referendum? They were all ratified by national parliaments where the result was guaranteed.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
National parliaments are elected and mandated to represent their citizens' wishes. The Irish parliament are doing so by enforcing the constitutional requirement for a referendum on this treaty. The multitude of other EU countries did so by their own decisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Using your appointed powers to perform what most people in your jurisdiction want you to is what your earlier link referred to as the sinister sounding majoritarianism, or what the rest of us call democracy.
On this occasion I agree with mypost, for reasons I've already stated -- this treaty is in the best interest of politicians, not countries or people. Of course politicians are going to ratify it.
adam
What's the best interests of politicians? Upping salaries? To take an arbitrary opposition party from across Europe that are supporting the Lisbon Treaty, what would Fine Gael politicians be getting out of this?Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
Power Gavan. The politician's lifeblood. I reckon I've posted the exact same thing now about a half dozen times in this thread, that's about enough for me.
adam
But aren't most anti-treaty people saying that this will reduce our voting power, and as such, our politician's voting power? Besides, in a democratic system, politicians can only retain power, and probably more importantly their salaries, by meeting their constituents wants and expectations.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
Voting for the treaty, according to the No campaign, would be a double blow for politicians, reducing their power and condemning themselves to losing it entirely when the EU are aborting our babies and taxing our children's shoes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
There were four referenda on the Constitutional Treaty; Spain, Luxembourg, France and the Netherlands. We don't hear too much about upholding the democratically expressed will of the people of Spain and Luxembourg though!
Luxembourg are one of the countries we can look down upon whilst still playing the "we're a small island nation" card.Quote:
Originally Posted by d13bohs
What does that even mean? It's like complaining about the poor deal FG voters get. That constitution was rejected according to current EU treaties. That should be the end of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by d13bohs
The only countries that rejected the Constitution were France and Holland. That sort of majoritarian elitism is bad, and protected against in the Lisbon Treaty which ensures that at least four countries have to back a proposal for it to pass. Those federalist No campaigners want France to make all our decisions for us!Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
Yes, and equally, those imperialist Yes campaigners want disguise to accustom counter-revolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
A more flexible voting system would be good, but the current system exists for a reason, and it's not the EU's place to undermine it by rerunning votes until it gets the desired result.
To be honest, having read the Lisbon Treaty, I think it shouldn't even go to a referendum. From reading the Crotty v An Taoiseach case in 1987 where it was first held that, where there was a major transfer of power to the EU in a treaty going outside the areas in which we were already party to, a referendum would be required to ratify it. However, a large part of that judgment which is often disregarded set out the other areas of the 1986 Single European Act (SEA) which would NOT have required a referendum (as follows):Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
"(1) Changes which are proposed in the decision-making process of the Council in six instances from unanimity to a qualified majority were asserted to be an unauthorised surrender of sovereignty.
(2) The power given to the Council by unanimous decision at the request of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (the European Court) to attach to it a court of first instance with an appeal from the latter on questions of law to the European Court was said to be an unauthorised surrender of the judicial power.
(3) It is submitted that Article 20 dealing with cooperation in economic and monetary policy, Article 21 dealing with social policy, Article 23 dealing with economic and social cohesion, Article 24 dealing with research and technological development, and Article 25 dealing with the environment, all add new objectives to the Treaty of Rome which make them additions to the original Treaty which are outside the existing constitutional authorisation.
(4) It is submitted that powers granted to the Council by Articles 18 and 21 of the SEA would enable it by a qualified majority to direct the approximation of laws concerning the provision of services and concerning the working environment, health and safety of workers which amount to new powers outside the existing constitutional authorisation and which could encroach on existing guarantees of fundamental rights under the Constitution. "
It was held that the only issue that required a referendum in the Crotty case was the fact that the Ecomonic Community was branching out into a Political Community by having a new role in foreign policy.
There is nothing anywhere near as significant as that in the Lisbon Treaty which moves outside of existing EU policies and in my view, the changes proposed are more in line with the changes in the SEA pasted above which were held NOT to require a referendum.
To those who argue that its anti-democratic to ratify Lisbon through parliament, we elect politicians to enact all sorts of legislation, provided its constitutional, why not this?
The whole problem with this treaty is the title given to its predecessor (the Constitutional Treaty). It was never actually a constitution but due to the vanity of Valery Giscaird D'Estaing, its chief architect, he wanted to make his treaty sound more significant than it actually was.
(Apologies for probably boring the pants off everyone else on this thread!) :o :o
Sweet mother of God - an informed, considered opinion. What the hell are you doing here?Quote:
Originally Posted by d13bohs
Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
Sorry, I meant 'vote yes or else we're all very bad Europeans' or something...:o Must have been a typo :D
:confused: :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
That's the result of a Yes vote.
Not true. Abortion & divorce were argued generally on facts. Immigration a little bit less so. The problem with Nice and Lisbon is that most people don't think it will have any effect on them so allow politicians to argue amongst themselves using the usual huff and bluff tactics.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
I voted too lazy in the above poll.
But you're telling us we have to do as France and Holland say, even if the rest of the EU demands differently. You've repeated this ad nauseum.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
The Treaty writes 'in stone' that any 3 countries, even if they are France, Germany and the UK (who constitute 2/5ths of the Union's population, as much as all the other countries except Italy put together), cannot push through a motion on their own.
Between politicians gaining by losing power, and having to do as big countries say so that we don't have to do what big countries say about a referendum that stops us from having to do what big countries say... the 'Níl' motion seems a bit confused. Perhaps they're a bit in a tizzy after that whole business with the gun running.
The people in Europe in general don't want this, that's why it was rejected in two referendums, and would have been rejected in several more if there was the opportunity. But there wasn't. All 26 countries who have "ratified" this joke have done it through parliament, where the outcome was rigged according to party allegiance. Politicians, not people want this, and it's people not politicians who will have to deal with the inevitable uproar and animosity down the line, when the full effects of it are felt.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
The people voted in the politicians, they should have questioned where their chosen politician stood on this question before giving them their preference, hence the people are either for this, or incapable of making an informed decision. So if the politicians ratify it then it is the will of the people, if it isn't they will be shown the door at the next local/national elections in said country. There isn't a politician on this planet that would commit career suicide by going completely against the electorate on an issue as important as this one, so I don't see how you can say the majority are against this
Remember what happened when the electorate voted no in the Nice referendum ? "Um, sorry folks, wrong answer, try again."
That's democracy though, here's a thinly veiled smokescreen that masks what we the fat cats want to happen, just deal with it! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyD
In most countries, there haven't been elections since the thing was signed in Lisbon. Politicians don't listen to their electorate, they make decisions that best serve the people in their eyes, whether that is the case or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by jebus
This age-old argument keeps been brought up. :rolleyes: We have done well out of Nice, whereas this offers us no benefit at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyD
I wouldn't advise you ever to enter politics; sounds like it'd be a shortlived career.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Politicians will have sent feelers out to test the mood of the people towards this, if people are as against it as you seem to believe then they will realise that they will not be re-elected in the next elections.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
People should still have asked their politician what their policy towards Europe was in their last elections, it's not like this has been sprung out of nowhere
And what did people do?Voted it through. If people were that bothered they'd just have voted No again.Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyD
"Er, sorry for the confusion folks, we'll write an extra little bit that addresses your concerns about neutrality, and then if that wording suits, we can have another bash off it?"Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyD
Even though the EU has constantly bent over to let us assert our neutrality whilst benefiting from security, it is again being raised as an issue in this referendum, despite explicit confirmation of our neutrality. In America they call that "Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) "
There is opposition to this treaty from the 5 main parties. They're all in favour of it, so there's no alternative to vote for.Quote:
Originally Posted by jebus
The public in Ballyremote are more interested in whether their local TD turns up at the GAA club's dinner dance than what his stance on Lisbon is. Some of them probably don't know where Lisbon is. :rolleyes:Quote:
People should still have asked their politician what their policy towards Europe was in their last elections, it's not like this has been sprung out of nowhere
You could vote for the shinners. I'd imagine that's where your vote will go next time, I'd be disgusted if the party i supported was so blatantly in favour of something i was against.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Then tough cookies to them when the EuroPolice come calling for their first born (isn't that what Sinn Fein and Libertas maintain will happen if the Yes vote win?)Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Wrong again :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
I don't have allegiance to any party, and will vote according to my views on the issues concerned.
Don't be silly..there'l be no first born-they're all gonna be aborted.Quote:
Originally Posted by jebus
No seriously though, I think the people in the 'No' camp who are going around sticking 'A white Ireland for Irish people' posters over the Yes posters are doing the Yes camp more good than any of the political parties. As silly as it seems at least 2 people have said to me that if nothing else they're voting yes simply to distance themselves from people like that.
All the other parties are, from your point of view, capable of throwing away our national sovereignty. You might be voting for them?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
There is of course, more to this referendum than that.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
As already stated, the fact that SF are against it, won't make any difference to my vote.
... go on?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
I'm referring, of course, to the next round of elections. Do party policies on issues as important as the future of the EU not come into play?Quote:
As already stated, the fact that SF are against it, won't make any difference to my vote.
Honestly, before I had read a thing about the Lisbon Treaty I asked who was for and against it. When I found out that the 'No Camp' consisted of a shady group called Libertas, the Church, Sinn Fein and the Anti-War Movement (?) I immediatly said 'sold! one vote for the yes camp', I should really stop talking to myself as a game show host thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by micls
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
There is one issue in referendums. There are 50 in elections. The difference between the two is black and white.
:oQuote:
Originally Posted by jebus
Every bit as shady, as one coalition partner in favour of it, in order to stay in government.