|
Post by AdRo on Apr 24, 2008 14:16:56 GMT
well france and netherlands voted no but england, poland and two other countries never got the chance to vote.also you got to think this "treaty" is just the nice treat just xzibit hs hands on it.its a pimped up "treaty" this thing canno be it read unless you have the eu constitution, nice treaty and the lisbon bogroll beside you to make any sense of it.
|
|
|
Post by Barry on Apr 24, 2008 14:38:26 GMT
Yeah when France and the Netherlands rejected the whole thing pretty much fell apart since it was required that every member state ratify it and every other country that was still to hold a referendum on the constitution postponed them including Ireland. Apparently only 30 percent of voters here would have voted in favour of it here anyway. I wonder if much has changed. It was likely to be defeated in Denmark and the UK as well.
|
|
|
Post by AdRo on Apr 24, 2008 14:58:42 GMT
no england signed fort already i think they voted yes.butwhat does it say about about the governments who meant to be democratic whre they won't let the majority vote
|
|
|
Post by Barry on Apr 24, 2008 15:00:12 GMT
Yeah I know that I was talking about the referendum that was meant to happen on the EU constitution.
|
|
|
Post by shane1349 on Apr 24, 2008 15:58:42 GMT
okay im a little bit lost at this stage, what did ya mean by a "pimped up" treaty ?
Anyway i think this has gone a bit off track and now people are only talking about the processes the treaty has undergone and the E.U. as a whole. Anyone have anything to say about the legislation itself?
|
|
|
Post by Barry on Apr 24, 2008 16:13:57 GMT
Here I want to continue the other discussion as well it's fairly interesting. Has anyone heard who is probably going to be appointed President of the EU Council or the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the "new EU" if it treaty succeeds? I heard Tony Blaire might be appointed president for the first term, earning himself around £200,000 per year. There's talk that it could be Bertie either. How exactly are they appointed (by who? I'm presuming it's different than the way the president in office is appointed?) and can they run for successive terms? Apparently the positions "influence and power will be decided by the nature of the first person in office", is this not something that should be set out clearly before ratifying the treaty? I guess power is relative and doesn't need constraints? What's the deal with each country not having a commissioner also?
|
|
|
Post by AdRo on Apr 24, 2008 20:00:30 GMT
here this might shed some light on it , barry from wikipedia: "The Treaty of Lisbon would expand the use of qualified majority voting (QMV), by making it the standard voting procedure. Though some areas of policy still require unanimous decisions (notably in in foreign policy and defence). QMV is reached when a majority of all member countries (55%) who represent a majority of all citizens (65%) vote in favour of a proposal. When the European Council is not acting on a proposal of the Commission, the necessary majority of all member countries is increased to 72% while the population requirement stays the same. To block legislation at least 4 countries have to be against the proposal.
The current Nice treaty voting rules (that include a majority of countries (50% / 67%), voting weights (74%) and population (62%)) would remain in place until 2014. Between 2014 and 2017 a transitional phase would take place where the new qualified majority voting rules apply, but where the old Nice treaty voting weights can be applied when a member state wishes so. Also from 2014 a new version of the 1994 "Ioannina Compromise" would take effect, which allows small minorities of EU states to call for re-examination of EU decisions they do not like.[23]
|
|
|
Post by Barry on May 2, 2008 10:10:49 GMT
"Businessman wins EU referendum bid A millionaire businessman has won permission to launch a High Court challenge over the Government's refusal to hold a referendum on the EU Reform Treaty (the Lisbon Treaty). (Advertisement) Stuart Wheeler, a major Conservative Party donor, claims that he had "a legitimate expectation" that Gordon Brown would hold a vote. The Government's decision to "resile from their promise" should be declared unlawful, he said. Mr Justice Owen, sitting at London's High Court, ruled that Mr Wheeler, 73 - who made more than £30 million from spread-betting firm IG Index - had "an arguable case" that should go to a full hearing. He has raised £150,000 from 150 donors to pay for his High Court battle. Mr Wheeler said after gambling thousands of pounds on his bid to obtain permission, and then winning his day in court: "The Government's lawyers tried to get the case thrown out, maintaining on various grounds that my case was unarguable. "I am delighted that the judge has decisively rejected that. "The moral case for a referendum was overwhelming. The legal case is strong, based upon a series of promises to the electorate. "The legal premise of the case is that it is in the interests of good administration that the Government should implement their promises, unless there is a sound reason not to. No reason has been given." The full hearing is expected to take place at the High Court in London on June 9-10." uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20080502/tuk-businessman-wins-eu-referendum-bid-6323e80.html
|
|
|
Post by Sarcophagi on May 8, 2008 22:25:22 GMT
I'm pissed off at both sides in this. We've been given absoloutely no objective information. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are just like "here, just vote yes, it'll be alright too" and the 'vote-no-ers' are all like "they're gonna take away our neutrality and our public health system and put our children's fingers into paper shredder machines and wake us up by splashing cold goo on us in the middle of the night".
if i'm home, i'll probably vote no because the government has not given us enough information. although in my opinion, more ideologically-driven EU influence on our mundane conservative politics may not be a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by Nailer on May 9, 2008 22:15:15 GMT
That's so sensationalist and off the mark it's unbelievable. It's typical of argument that has no basis, all huff and puff and no substance. How exactly are Europe politicians walking over their own people? If you believe that a decision like this requires a Europe-wide referendum, then fair enough, opinion is opinion. But for fuck sake, get rid of this bloody working-class martyr, crushed down by the big wigs in Brussels attitude. Do you know how fucking answerable the European Commission and Parliament are to European citizens? The idea of anything even remotely fascist sneaking into Europe is ridiculous. First of all, Europe is not a solid entity. France, Germany and Spain are so intrinsically different it is ridiculous. There is no round table in Brussels that all these leaders sit around rubbing their hands with glee at their ingenious deception of the "working classes". Look at how different Europe is, all over, culturally. The benefits in Europe have been economically and peace wise. Even look at the whole basis upon which the EU was founded. Whether you like it or not, the EU has been the most successful peace process the world has ever seen. Pre-EU Europe was fucking rife with war, dictatorships, and economic ruin. Germany and France were down each others throats for so long it was unimaginable that their could ever be any sort of harmony in Europe. Now its the most peaceful place in the world, and has shown absolutely no aggression to any other countries since its conception. Individual countries have made individual decisions (Britain backed the Iraq war) but the EU collectively is pacifist to its very core. Thats the reason it was founded, and that is fact. Facts speak for themselves. "The peaceful minded people of Europe?" My God, you make it out as if the masses are some Utopian society ruled by these European overlords. These European countries are democracies, thats the political system supported by the majority in every single country in Europe. They have had a say, they elected a government, elected a cabinet minister, and elected a commissioner. That's what bureaucracy is. Whether you think this decision is big enough to warrant a referendum is personal opinion, but the people of the EU have had their say, thats what bloody government is! And what happens if these governments don't do what they promised when running for election? They lose votes and fall from power. That's how it works, that hows its set up so that the "working classes" get their say, not the other way round. I mean, what the hell do you mean by "walking into third world countries"? What has the EU ever done to give you any means to question its foreign policy? Do you think the EU are going to start invading the world's minnows? Europe is the most peaceful place on earth, by fact. Human nature states that those in power fuck over those without it, but what evidence, even one case, give you cause to believe that Europe is going to start invading countries? Imperialism as America knows it is dead. Pre-EU Europe built their civilizations off of imperialism and murder, as did the rest of the developed world. But European acts of aggression in the present are nil. I'm sorry if this seems very personal, I respect your opinion Kevin and always have, but this is just way off the mark. Its the stereotypical "distrust everyone above me politically" attitude, and has no basis whatsoever. So this argument seems to really come down to whether or not each member state should have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. You seem to always leave out the fact that the EU constitution was already rejected by referendum in other countries, what do you make of this? And leave out your opinion of whether or not you agree with the result and your love for the EU. Not a bit of a hint that the people of Europe don't actually want it, no? You know empirical evidence is somewhat unwise to ignore. There's a reason why it failed, and there's a reason why it was amended to avoid further referendums. Kind of like "we know what's best for them, they'll see later so we'll decide for them even if they don't want it." That doesn't seem very democratic to me. And yeah the people elected their governments but I'm not sure if their "representatives" signing the Lisbon Treaty was high up on their agenda when they voted in their respective governments. Say Dan's comment and noticed that I had never replied to this thread and totally killed the argument, sorry! Well its also worth nothing thats its not very democratic that two countries out of 25 can block a decision. That in its essence is undemocratic. Also, and I'm probably going to be vilified for this, but the amount of anti-EU sentiment drummed up at the time was crazy. large sections of the media whipped both those countries into a frenzy and buzzwords of lost sovereignty and decreased independence were floated around everywhere. It was put to vote again and passed, that is democratic in my eyes. I'd compare it to what could potentially happen in Ireland now. Basically, no one knows anything about this treaty (which is the fault of the governments, I'll concede that) so it could well happen that a lot of people will vote no. Ireland is in the midst of some widespread anti EU feeling and fear, which I don't really think Is justified. I don't think we have any reason to be afraid, at all. But through lack of information and the massive apprehension thats running through the country, the treaty could be rejected. Then imagine if it was rejected. What would immediately happen would be a massive wave of information about the treaty sweeping the country, with the various governments urging us to reconsider. If we then voted yes, it would be an exact mirror image of what happened in France and the Netherlands. It was the same there as it is here now. Massive feelings of nationalism and apprehension (which is understandable) that could lead to a no vote, a massive release of much needed information, and then a yes vote. Just like what happened in France and the Netherlands. I think that's democratic. We got another vote like. The governments supported a yes vote, but I don't see whats wrong with that, they are entitled to a viewpoint too, and they had information that people needed. That would basically how I feel on 2 out of 25 countries rejecting the original constitution. In my eyes its less democratic for a minority like that having such an influence on the majority decision than asking people to vote again on an issue that was massively devoid of information.
|
|
|
Post by Nailer on May 9, 2008 22:16:35 GMT
*puts up flame shield*
|
|
|
Post by Barry on May 10, 2008 12:00:13 GMT
So this argument seems to really come down to whether or not each member state should have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. You seem to always leave out the fact that the EU constitution was already rejected by referendum in other countries, what do you make of this? And leave out your opinion of whether or not you agree with the result and your love for the EU. Not a bit of a hint that the people of Europe don't actually want it, no? You know empirical evidence is somewhat unwise to ignore. There's a reason why it failed, and there's a reason why it was amended to avoid further referendums. Kind of like "we know what's best for them, they'll see later so we'll decide for them even if they don't want it." That doesn't seem very democratic to me. And yeah the people elected their governments but I'm not sure if their "representatives" signing the Lisbon Treaty was high up on their agenda when they voted in their respective governments. Also, and I'm probably going to be vilified for this, but the amount of anti-EU sentiment drummed up at the time was crazy. large sections of the media whipped both those countries into a frenzy and buzzwords of lost sovereignty and decreased independence were floated around everywhere. It was put to vote again and passed, that is democratic in my eyes. Kind of like the way now the only thing we're hearing about this from our government are buzz words like "progress", "democracy" and "freedom", all sounds very lovely but those booklets we all got through the post aren't exactly a debate on the benefits and costs of the treaty, are they? The lack of public debate on the treaty is shocking since the referendum is just over a month away. Then imagine if it was rejected. What would immediately happen would be a massive wave of information about the treaty sweeping the country, with the various governments urging us to reconsider. If we then voted yes, it would be an exact mirror image of what happened in France and the Netherlands. How would it be an exact mirror image of what happened in France and the Netherlands? This time around they weren't required to hold a referendum because these is a treaty not a constitution (although it's 95 per cent the same as what was already rejected by referendum) so their respective governments just signed on, we would still need to hold a referendum, there's no way to get around that. What's this massive release of information you speak of? It wasn't the same people who decided in France and the Netherlands this time around, it was their governments, not the the citizens! I don't think the other countries should have the power to decide for another country when it comes to surrendering sovereignty. I guess that's why every country has to ratify the treaty.
|
|
|
Post by kevinkav on May 20, 2008 13:57:04 GMT
Apparently Brian Cowen said the other day that he "Hasn't yet read the Lisbon reform treaty". Hmm...this seems strange considering he's told every member of his party that they have to fall in party line and support it.
|
|
m7
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by m7 on May 26, 2008 11:40:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Bob Himself on Jun 4, 2008 12:02:57 GMT
Fuck I just found out I'm not registered to vote. I'd have voted No all the same
|
|
|
Post by Kevo on Jun 4, 2008 15:18:06 GMT
Shit i cant register the RFA2 form has to be completed and handed in to the council 15 days before the poll to register
|
|
|
Post by Barry on Jun 6, 2008 13:57:11 GMT
From the Times today:
THE LISBON Treaty could face a shock rejection with the No side now in the lead, according to the findings of the latest Irish Times /TNS mrbi poll.
It will take an unprecedented swing in the last week of the campaign for the treaty to be carried.
The poll shows the number of people intending to vote No has almost doubled to 35 per cent (up 17 points) since the last poll three weeks ago, while the number of the Yes side has declined to 30 per cent (down 5 points).
The number of undecided voters is still a significant 28 per cent (down 12 points) while 7 per cent won't vote.
The massive increase by the No vote since the last poll has mainly come through gains among undecided voters but, even more ominously for the Yes side, it has lost some support to the No camp.
While the final outcome is still in the hands of undecided voters, the clear momentum is now with the No campaign and it will take a dramatic shift in public attitudes over the next few days for the Yes side to win.
The swing to the No camp has not been prompted by domestic considerations, with just 5 per cent of those opposed to the treaty saying they are influenced by a desire to protest against the Government.
The reason most often cited by No voters is that they don't know what they are voting for or they don't understand the treaty - with 30 per cent of No voters listing this as the main reason for their decision.
The poll was conducted last Tuesday and Wednesday among a representative sample of 1,000 voters in face-to-face interviews at 100 sampling points in all 43 constituencies.
It was taken in the middle of the controversy over the World Trade Organisation talks.
That issue came to a head on Tuesday afternoon with the announcement by the Irish Farmers Association that it would support a Yes vote following the declaration by the Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, that he would use the veto to block any deal unacceptable to Ireland if the issue was put to a vote.
The poll showed that farmers are opposed to the treaty by 34 per cent to 31 per cent. The No majority among working-class C2DE voters is much bigger, with Labour voters shifting in large numbers from the Yes side.
It indicates that opposition to the treaty expressed by some trade unionists is having an impact.
In class terms, the Yes campaign is only ahead among better-off ABC1 voters.
Fianna Fáil voters continue to back the treaty but even in that category the No campaign has made massive strides in the past three weeks with a gain of 15 points to 25 per cent, while the proportion of Yes voters has fallen by five points to 42 per cent.
A clear majority of Fine Gael voters are now against the treaty - by 40 per cent to 30 per cent.
Among Labour voters there has been a massive turnaround with the No side almost doubling its support to 47 per cent with 30 per cent of party supporters in favour.
Ironically, given the party's previous stance on the EU, strong support for the treaty comes from Green Party supporters.
Sinn Féin voters are overwhelming in the No side, in line with their party's position.
The poll reveals the persistence of a significant difference in the attitudes of men and women to the treaty with women less likely to be in favour, although the biggest proportion of women are still in the undecided camp.
Across the age groups, older people are more positively disposed towards voting Yes but only among the over-50s was there a majority for the treaty. The highest proportion of No voters came from the 35 to 49 age group.
In regional terms the No lead is biggest in Munster, it was narrow in Dublin and the two sides are evenly matched in the rest of Leinster and Connacht-Ulster.
When asked for the main reasons why they had decided to vote No, not knowing what the treaty was about came first, followed by a wish to keep Ireland's power and identity.
The preservation of neutrality came next.
Those voting Yes cited keeping Ireland closely involved in the EU as their top reason followed by enabling the EU to work more effectively. Concerns about the country's economic future came next.
|
|
|
Post by Cian on Jun 9, 2008 22:40:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Bob Himself on Jun 11, 2008 11:09:27 GMT
I'm after getting some worried about this referendum! The more I read or hear about it, the more it seems detrimental to Ireland, whatever about the rest of Europe. I know people were worried about joining the EU in the 70s because they thought we'd lose our independence and it ended up being the best thing that happened to the country. But this thing actually seems like we'll be voting away our independence. We'll have less power than ever if this country votes 'yes'.
I mean the only reason this country got a referendum is because our courts are too independent; if we vote 'yes', we won't get opportunities like this anymore! We'll, essentially, be voting away some of our independence. It kind of worries me that this treaty was going to be passed without refering it back to the people of Europe. Fuckers. And the fact that we are the deciding factor for 500 million people!
I dunno lads, if yiz are registered, I can't see any reason for yiz to be voting yes.
|
|
|
Post by Nailer on Jun 11, 2008 19:30:35 GMT
Right!
Finished my leaving, about to celebrate.
Barry: You were right about Netherlands and France, I was under the impression that The Dutch and French had got a second vote on it as opposed to their governments just passing it. And there is something wholly democratic there, absolutely.
I would definitely question the EU's actions. I agree with you Barry, there's definitely a case of "we know whats best for you, shhh" about the whole thing. In that light, I would be a bit wary about this process. That being said, while I don't necessarily think that the EU has been totally above board (technically, it has, but whatever) I don't really have any great worry about the EU's motive.
I mean, like Bob said, everyone shat it in 1973. After what our country has gone through, words like sovereignty mean a bloody lot. But everyone keeps working on the basis of how this treaty will be bad for Ireland, as opposed to how it will be good for Europe.
Look at it like this: Ireland has received about 37 billion euro from the EU. Do people think that that was just a handout? The whole point of a union like the EU is that there is a compromise. My basic point is that there it is completely impossible to have any sort of decision involving this much countries that everyone will go, "Yes, that suits us perfectly". There has to be compromise in my eyes.
The treaty will lessen our immediate input in the EU. But it is so a very slight degree. The benefit here is supposed to be getting rid of the bureaucracy for which the EU has been lambasted heavily. NATO and the UN and most people in the world complain about the rubber stamping and bullshit that takes twice as long in Brussels and Strasbourg than it does anywhere else in the world. The whole point of taking a slight degree of powers from countries Europe wide is to make the whole thing run smoother.
This would worry me If I didn't trust those in charge of the EU. But I do. Not one EU country has lost out in the EU in any substantial way, ever. I think it's just scaremongering to be honest. People were afraid of the EU in 73 'cos it was a big bad thing that no one really new about, loads of nationalists protested like fuck, and the EU made a massive balls of explaining the whole thing. Its similar enough now.
The way I see it, a union is about compromise and mutual benefit. We have reaped MASSIVE rewards as a region one funding nation up 'til now. But the EU is a slow, lethargic institution that has been criticised for it's bureaucracy. It's time to rectify that, and I don't mind surrendering some of our "sovereignty" if that means a general greater good Europe wide.
Maybe it'll all blow up in our faces, but there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to make me think that it will.
So there ya go, my two cents.
|
|