Official Thumped position on Lisbon (1 Viewer)

[broken arm]

To address the concerns of the Irish electorate the parts of the treaty *we weren't happy with should have been changed.

How would this work in practice though? i.e. legally and politically

bearing in mind there is 27 member states and 500 miilion people all with their own personal, cultural, economic, religious, political, sexual, gender idiosyncrasies.

 

[Mormon Nailer]

i would agree with this if nothing had changed. I voted yes the first time round and would vote no if they presented us with the same treaty in the same context as they did before. But...things have changed. They have legal assurances now to assuage people's concerns about the treaty, so that's not really a good enough argument to vote no anymore.

True if I was voting no because of some hysterical fear of conscription into some imaginary army.

The things that I didn't like haven't changed.

One country one vote!

 

[rettucs]

How would this work in practice though? i.e. legally and politically

bearing in mind there is 27 member states and 500 miilion people all with their own personal, cultural, economic, religious, political, sexual, gender idiosyncrasies.

yep, it'd be tough alright. But, in reality there are only 4 million people that need to be convinced because there are only 4 million people with the power of veto.

And that 4 million would be us.

 

[pissypants]

I with Jim Corr on this one.

YouTube - Jim Corr - NO to the Lisbon Treaty

Poor Jim, he's not been the same since he saw the da vinci code.

 

[broken arm]

ok.

can we have one list of the things people don't like about Lisbon?

an approximation on the % of Irish people that share those same concerns?

a scoring/ranking of those concerns in relation to scope and risk?

and some form of a workable solution in the context of an enlarged Europe - especially for the economically disadvantaged countries.

- the list should be accurate and referenced to specific sections of the treaty (and extended relevant references)

thanks

 

[SONYMEGADRIVE]

ok.

can we have one list of the things people don't like about Lisbon?

an approximation on the % of Irish people that share those same concerns?

a scoring/ranking of those concerns in relation to scope and risk?

and some form of a workable solution in the context of an enlarged Europe - especially for the economically disadvantaged countries.

- the list should be accurate and referenced to specific sections of the treaty (and extended relevant references)

thanks

- brian cowen
- fianna fail

oh no wwait....

 

[pad]

I don't get that though. It was the treaty that people wouldn't accept. The treaty hasn't changed. Assurances sound weak in my book. To address the concerns of the Irish electorate the parts of the treaty *we weren't happy with should have been changed. Once the treaty comes into being, whats to say the assurances can't change/will be honoured?


* referring to those that actually know whats in the treaty.

well the assurances are legally binding for one thing. so if you didn't agree with the treaty for one of the reasons that the new protocol deals with, then you have nothing to worry about anymore. however if you disagree with the treaty for reasons other than those covered by the assurances in the protocol, then of course you should vote no. i'm just saying that the circumstances have changed, and while the treaty itself may not have changed, the implications of the treaty for irish people have changed and so i think it's fair enough to re-visit it with fresh eyes and re-visit your reasons for voting yes or no. I don't think it's valid to say we're being asked to vote on the same thing because the outcome of the treaty is now potentially quite different to what it would have been had it been voted in the first time round.

 

[Moods For Mallards]

I'll be voting no again.
I'd hate to think that these 'assurances' would have any bearing on most Irish people - they certainly paint us as a backwards little shithole.
Anyway, I am increasingly opposed to the anti-democratic nature of the whole European project and I think it would be in the interests of people across the continent if we continued to be a nuisance, even if it invites scolding from vested interests.
The whole thing needs be re-evaluated.

 

[Froog]

worth doing a quick poll lads? over to the politics forum...

 

[ratmonkey]

I'll be voting no again.
I'd hate to think that these 'assurances' would have any bearing on most Irish people - they certainly paint us as a backwards little shithole.

Would that be so far from the mark?

 

[Unicron]

Yes. Thats one thing I do know about it. Theres a little clause in there somewhere that puts us in the same boat as the rest of Europe. For this treaty we're the only country that has to ratify it by vote because our constitution says that the constitution itself can't be changed without putting it to the people (written in Pearse's blood I do believe). Now that all changes. From now on, assuming it will be ratified (which it will be cos we're weak-assed that way), we'll be Europe's bitch for all eternity, or at least until we join the league of Arab nations.

I think the reason that we won't be having anymore EU votes if we vote yes is because one of the clauses in the treaty makes it editable meaning that any future EU agreements that would have normally been classed as their own treaty can be rolled into the already ratified Lisbon one. It's not that they're removing the constitutional requirement for a referendum here it more that they're redrawing the playing field so that it's not an issue for them.

 

[nooleen]

right, i'm off to wikipedia or somewhere to figure this out once and for all!

back in 5 mins saying i've given up

 

[Moods For Mallards]

Would that be so far from the mark?

Probably not but one can but dream.

 

[Space]

I think the reason that we won't be having anymore EU votes if we vote yes is because one of the clauses in the treaty makes it editable meaning that any future EU agreements that would have normally been classed as their own treaty can be rolled into the already ratified Lisbon one. It's not that they're removing the constitutional requirement for a referendum here it more that they're redrawing the playing field so that it's not an issue for them.

This is my understanding of it too.

 

[pad]

I'd hate to think that these 'assurances' would have any bearing on most Irish people - they certainly paint us as a backwards little shithole.

i'll be voting yes, but i agree with this wholeheartedly.

 

[pad]

This is my understanding of it too.

moose, don't be pretending you understand things now.

 

[nooleen]

right, i'm off to wikipedia or somewhere to figure this out once and for all!

back in 5 mins saying i've given up

yeah, i give up

 

[Wobbler]

I voted yes and I'll be voting yes again.

I don't buy into the notion that reholding the treaty is undemocratic. I accept there are lots of valid reasons to oppose the treaty, depending on your world view, I also believe lots of people voted no for the wrong reasons.

Some people, not all, opposed the treaty because
-They didn't bother reading up on it so thought they were better voting no
-Unfounded concerns about abortion
-Unfounded claims about conscription
-Unfounded claims about taxation

If the referendum was reheld with a better informed electorate, it would be democracy working well.
-

 

[krossie]

-Unfounded concerns about abortion

There's also the "substantive issue" here of abortion or (from my point of view) more properly a woman's right to choose.

For me personally and I reckon a very rapidly increasing crowd of people in this forsaken isle (possibly even a majority at this juncture) putting the orish "pro-life" prohibition at the heart of E U law would actually be another decisive reason (maybe the decisive reason) for voting no!

of course I am presuming here that if its no the 3 legal protocols go too?

Oh dear creak another can o' worms opened

kp

 

[Space]

moose, don't be pretending you understand things now.

That's me told, I suppose I better toe the line now then.