Lisbon Treaty (3 Viewers)

[oh shit]

yep
a no vote isn't a no to europe
it keeps open the possibility of a democratic europe
IS THIS WHAT THE HEROES DIED FOR

 

[Goff]

Exactly. The EU isn't exactly going to fall apart just because we vote no. It'll be the same as it was. But they might start listening to what the people actually want. If we vote no, then other countries' peoples might actually start thinking they can do the same and demand the same rights.

Else, as Tony Benn said, if we vote yes, it might end up with states getting more and more nationalistic in the long run when they realise they're being given the shaft by Germany and the UK.

Another thing, how come the UK will get more power, compared to us, when they've been negating the whole thing since Maastricht? Cunts won't even use the Euro.

 

[Scientician 0.8]

Anywhere I can read about opinions on Lisbon Treaty in other EU countries?

 

[hugh]

I think that there's an aspect to the current treaty that makes it self editing ...

If we pass this, we can kiss goodbye to future referenda on Europe. Because so long as both houses of the Oireachtas approve any changes, they can pass anything.

So basically we are signing away our constitution if we go for this.

According to the Green Party document that Simp linked to this is all wrong (extract below). Actually that document makes pretty interesting reading as it gives some insight into how political parties and organisations go about training their members to promote policies etc. A list of "selling points" for the treaty .. a list of rebuttals to common objections and so on. I am confused though as I thought the Green Party were not formally campaigning for the treaty as they didn't achieve a majority vote on it or whatever. So why would they be putting together a document like that?

For the record, I don't know who is right here .... but someone isn't .....

------------------------------------------

"The Treaty is not self-amending as its critics sometimes claim. It makes absolutely clear that any future changes must be ratified in accordance with the constitutional requirements of each Member State.

Article 1.56 of the Reform Treaty (sometimes referred to by Treaty opponents as Article 48 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union) provides that any future move to confer additional powers on the EU, or to alter the provisions of the Treaties, would continue to require an Intergovernmental Conference (normally preceded by a Convention made up of representatives of national parliaments and Governments and the EU institutions). This is known as the “ordinary revision procedure”.

A proposal to amend EU internal polices in a way that does not increase the Union’s competences would not require an IGC. Any such decision would still have to be ratified in accordance with the constitutional requirements of each Member State. This procedure is called the “simplified revision procedure”.

In Ireland, this means that advice will be sought from the Attorney General on each occasion as to whether a referendum is required. The Government would be guided by the advice of the Attorney General.

Article 1.56 also contains another “simplified revision procedure”. This provides that the European Council, acting unanimously, can decide that a policy should in the future be decided by QMV rather than unanimity. Any such decision can be vetoed by any Government or any national parliament. This procedure cannot be used with respect to security and defence matters. "

 

[broken arm]

For anyone voting No.

can you explain the strategy/roadmap to improve Europe after a No vote from Ireland?

 

[classic seanc]

For anyone voting No.

can you explain the strategy/roadmap to improve Europe after a No vote from Ireland?

Totally dudes, c'mon.

There's way too much "feck Bertie", "feck FF", "feck Europe" going on. And as much as I like saying "feck you, Bertie Ahern", that has nothing to do with this treaty.

I have an idea in the back of my mind that naysaying everything about Europe will allow the FF/PD's to sleepwalk us into the position of Bitch Gimp of The Anglo-American Capitalist Empire. Or something.

That said, I don't think I can vote yes on this. I've been reading about it. I just don't think it's good enough. Still not completely convinced though.

 

[pete]

For anyone voting No.

can you explain the strategy/roadmap to improve Europe after a No vote from Ireland?

eh, no.

Isn't that what we pay them there politicians for?

 

[Janer]

fixed

But I do care Peter, I am not just regged, then again your going to retort that if I cared I'd be regged.
Damn you.

 

[nofunchee]

But I do care Peter, I am not just regged, then again your going to retort that if I cared I'd be regged.
Damn you.

you've got until 14 working days before the referendum! there's still time!

 

[Mormon Nailer]

For anyone voting No.

can you explain the strategy/roadmap to improve Europe after a No vote from Ireland?

Who ever said there was anything wrong with Europe in the first place? What exactly is the problem people have with the concept of the EU being a community of equals?

A huge volume of very important and very worthwhile legislation has been produced in Europe over the years - what exactly is it that's broken that requires such urgent fixing?

Why do EU leaders see it as imperative that they get their snout into the geopolitical trough.

If people were generally in the habit of accepting whatever is on offer cause nothing better was immediately available I'm pretty sure I'd be having waaaay more casual sex.

 

[nofunchee]

For anyone voting No.

can you explain the strategy/roadmap to improve Europe after a No vote from Ireland?

wait for the revolution to happen?

 

[pete]

For anyone voting No.

can you explain the strategy/roadmap to improve Europe after a No vote from Ireland?

If people were generally in the habit of accepting whatever is on offer cause nothing better was immediately available I'm pretty sure I'd be having waaaay more casual sex.

so. item number a: more casual sex.

 

[broken arm]

If people were generally in the habit of accepting whatever is on offer cause nothing better was immediately available I'm pretty sure I'd be having waaaay more casual sex.

i'm not saying anything has to be accepted for the sake of it but the same responsbility on the YES camp rests with the NO camp i.e. explain your position and take responsibility for your action(s).

 

[broken arm]

wait for the revolution to happen?

oh, that thing.

 

[Mormon Nailer]

i'm not saying anything has to be accepted for the sake of it but the same responsbility on the YES camp rests with the NO camp i.e. explain your position and take responsibility for your action(s).

I wouldn't quite agree with that. It's for the yes camp to tell us why this treaty is good and for the no camp to explain why THIS treaty is bad.

Wondering about a hypothethical alternative is for the future - the question at the moment is is this treaty acceptable.

 

[broken arm]

Wondering about a hypothethical alternative is for the future - the question at the moment is is this treaty acceptable.

is the treaty not about the future?

 

[Diddles]

I just don't know.

I like the poster with the monkeys on it.

 

[oh shit]

is the treaty not about the future?

the simple question is the space for actual politics as opposed to centralised governance

does this treaty increase or decrease the democratic accountability of governance in europe, in your opinion?

if you're a democrat, it's not up to you to present an 'alternative'. that's a ridiculous injunction, designed to limit the debate to the parameters established by those proposing the treaty:
"you are free to reject this treaty, but first you must tell us why you reject this treaty"
come off it

 

[broken arm]

the simple question is the space for actual politics as opposed to centralised governance

does this treaty increase or decrease the democratic accountability of governance in europe, in your opinion?

if you're a democrat, it's not up to you to present an 'alternative'. that's a ridiculous injunction, designed to limit the debate to the parameters established by those proposing the treaty:
"you are free to reject this treaty, but first you must tell us why you reject this treaty"
come off it

i knew I'd be perceived as taking a particular side in this......

at the moment i can't say whether accounatbility is threatened because i feel subsidiarity in the european context is relative. I am personally biased to think this because of my work in the area of environmental/industrial policy within europe - i have seen structural changes in how we create value, meaning, culture and business without anyone even so much as batting an eye-lid.

Now there is this fake situation of one region having to make a decision that affects many regions/people... Is this a symbol of democracy? Should democracy be the right to reject or the right to build? I.e. do I vote no because of a constellation of personal fears, prejudices and paradigms or do i vote no because I have a strong vision of a what the europe/world/dublin I want is and how we can make it.

I don't think the need or the want to present an alternative is a limit to debate - it's the opposite.

 

[pete]

the alternative is the status quo

and i for one have nothing against messrs. parfitt and rossi