# a Lisbon question before i decide



## johnwilliams (18 Sep 2009)

hi folks
when the original group of countries got together compromises were made by each (gains and losses) now we come along looking fo a gain/sweetener for our yes vote .one of the original countries may now have to give up one of their gains to us to get us on board.
what happens when the next country comes along after us looking for a sweetener .the sweetener we got for our vote. can the other members of the group take it from us and give it to them and we will have no say or ability to stop it from happening 

not great at getting my point across so i  hope you understand what i am trying to ask


----------



## starlite68 (19 Sep 2009)

the problem is that the sweetener we got has not been entered into the wording of the treaty! and thats why many dont believe  its wort a jot.


----------



## circle (19 Sep 2009)

We're the only country where it was put to referendum, it's already passed in 23/27 countries with Germany, Poland and Czech waiting for a presidential rubber stamp. So, it doesn't look there there would be a chance for anyone else to issue demands at this stage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon#Mandatory_ratifications


----------



## RMCF (19 Sep 2009)

circle said:


> *We're the only country where it was put to referendum, it's already passed in 23/27 countries* with Germany, Poland and Czech waiting for a presidential rubber stamp. So, it doesn't look there there would be a chance for anyone else to issue demands at this stage.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon#Mandatory_ratifications



But in those other countries, the people weren't asked. It was decided for them.


----------



## Ancutza (19 Sep 2009)

None of the so-called guarantees have been written into the treaty. They will be dumped as soon as the irish electorate votes the 'right' way.  The Lisbon Treaty remains unchanged.

I'm particularly disgusted by the presence of Barroso in the country this weekend rattling his sabre at the people of a sovereign state. But then I guess he doesn't view us as such.  Just an unruly province of a soon-to-be federal europe.

Interesting isn't it that Cowen didn't meet him off the plane?  I wonder why?  FF are beneath contempt and their leader knows it.


----------



## Caveat (19 Sep 2009)

Ancutza said:


> None of the so-called guarantees have been written into the treaty.



OK, you are a NO voter.

But be honest, do you not find it strange that Ireland should be deemed 'special' in that they need guarantees about anything?

What guarantees do you personally feel we should have?


----------



## D8Lady (20 Sep 2009)

Ancutza said:


> They will be dumped as soon as the irish electorate votes the 'right' way.....
> 
> ..I'm particularly disgusted by the presence of Barroso in the country this weekend ...



Can you give an example where the EU ever reneged on any similar guarentees or opt outs, e.g. UK, Denmark, Sweeden to name a few? If the guraentees were dumped, it would be a first. 
 Why would we be singled out for that treatment? 

As for Barroso - I want to hear more from the  EU. Am tired of hearing paranoid   [FONT=&quot]conspiracy plots from no campaigners. I want to hear the whole story. 
[/FONT]


----------



## starlite68 (20 Sep 2009)

D8Lady said:


> Can you give an example where the EU ever reneged on any similar guarentees or opt outs, e.g. UK, Denmark, Sweeden to name a few? If the guraentees were dumped, it would be a first.
> Why would we be singled out for that treatment?
> [FONT=&quot]
> [/FONT]


then why are they not being properly written to the treaty?


----------



## Yorrick (20 Sep 2009)

Do people seriously believe that Youth Defence, Coir, Sinn Fein, Patricia McKenna, Boyd Barret, Jim Corr, Joe Higgins are all correct and we should have every trust in them.  I don't think I have ever met such a crowd of headbangers. I'll take my chances with the Yes vote


----------



## D8Lady (20 Sep 2009)

starlite68 said:


> then why are they not being properly written to the treaty?



Because over 20 countries have already ratified the lisbon Treaty.
The guarentees will be in a seperate treaty. 

[broken link removed]
"The new international treaty will come into force on the same day as the Treaty of Lisbon, if the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified by all the member states." 

But you haven't answered my question: When has the EU ever reneged on any agreement? Why do you believe that Ireland would be the first?


----------



## Teatime (20 Sep 2009)

Yorrick said:


> Do people seriously believe that Youth Defence, Coir, Sinn Fein, Patricia McKenna, Boyd Barret, Jim Corr, Joe Higgins are all correct and we should have every trust in them. I don't think I have ever met such a crowd of headbangers. I'll take my chances with the Yes vote


 
You forgot the US backed Declan Ganley...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMRP_TqBzr0

...and the UKIP


----------



## Ancutza (20 Sep 2009)

Thanks for that link D8.  Highly enlightening.  If you take a moment to read down as to the status of the so-called guarantees you will read..



> The solemn declaration is a political statement. _It is not legally_ _binding_.


 (My italics).

As Starlite correctly observes this is about political expediency.  Tell 'em what they want to hear so they'll vote our way.  Terrorise them.  Make them lie down in fear.   After that we will do what the heck we like. Akin to any electioneering slogans 'No new taxes', 'Full employment', 'Taxes cuts for all', blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...  Why is this not being done properly by writing in these so-called guarantees into the treaty?  This baloney that theses assurances will be written into a later accession treaty is just that.  Baloney!

If I take you at your word that the EU has, until now, not reneged on any of it's opt out clauses, exemptions etc will you take me at my word that they will when their federal european project is far enough along for there to be no going back?

Why is your argument more credible than mine?

The 'Yes' campaign is purely based on fear and shoring-up the gravy train for failed EU policy makers everywhere.

As in favour as I am of Ireland continuing to be at the heart of Europe (believe it or not I _do _actually think so) the Lisbon Treaty is an inequitable way forward for us which will erode our sovereinty further and push us into second class status within the EU.

The EU has utterly no respect for democracy otherwise it would have respected our first vote.  Equally our elected officials have no respect for us.  They are going to sell our small island down the river and, when they've done that, they are going inflict NAMA on us to save their mates from the Galway tent and all the greedy bankers at the expense of us,our kids and our grandkids.  A spectacular double whammy which you are advocating. For shame!


----------



## mro (20 Sep 2009)

You can't just quote one part of the section and ignore the rest. It says the 

"The guarantees are contained in a new international treaty which is legally binding on all 27member states of the EU.' 
and the 
"The new international treaty will come into force on the same day as the Treaty of Lisbon, if the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified by all the member states."

The solemn declaration is in relation to workers rights


----------



## Pique318 (20 Sep 2009)

Ancutza said:


> ... the Lisbon Treaty is an inequitable way forward for us which will erode our sovereinty further and push us into second class status within the EU.



Explain please ? 

Is it the fact that we will have less voting rights than we do now ? Well a democracy is all about '1 person, 1 vote' and at the moment we have much too high a vote based on our population. Reducing that may not be nice, but it would be ultimately fairer, no ?


----------



## Ancutza (20 Sep 2009)

> The new international treaty will come into force on the same day as the Treaty of Lisbon, if the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified by all the member states."


What new international treaty is this?? Furthermore if it exists then why have we not been asked to vote on it too?  Smoke and mirrors in my opinion.

With regard to the solemn declaration, I'll take your point.  But the fact is that NONE of the so-called guarantees hold any water legally.  For them to do so would mean them being written into the Lisbon Treaty as Starlite correctly points out.


----------



## Ancutza (20 Sep 2009)

> Is it the fact that we will have less voting rights than we do now ? Well a democracy is all about '1 person, 1 vote' and at the moment we have much too high a vote based on our population. Reducing that may not be nice, but it would be ultimately fairer, no ?



I'll take that point too but doesn't democracy also require you to respect the clearly stated wishes of an electorate even if that vote may have went against you?  Did we not say 'No' already?  Why do we have to do it again?

There are many instances where minorities (as we are in the EU) have weighted benefits granted to them under particular legislation to ensure that they are not simply subsumed under the weight of the majority.  This, in the current format of the Treaty of Lisbon, will not apply to us.  The whole thing either needs dumping (my opinion) or, at the very least, a massively substantial renegotiation.

What's going on at the moment is press-gang politics.


----------



## D8Lady (20 Sep 2009)

It sounds to me that you have indeed made you your mind, which was the purpose of your original question.


----------



## Ancutza (20 Sep 2009)

What was my original question?


----------



## D8Lady (20 Sep 2009)

Oops! getting my posters mixed up, its late...


----------



## mro (22 Sep 2009)

Ancutza said:


> What new international treaty is this?? Furthermore if it exists then why have we not been asked to vote on it too?  Smoke and mirrors in my opinion.



From citizens information page
"The guarantees are contained in a new international treaty which is legally binding on all 27member states of the EU. They are not part of the Lisbon Treaty. The Lisbon treaty itself is not changed by this new treaty. The European Council has agreed that protocols will be added to a later EU treaty to give full effect in EU law to the guarantees (this is likely to be a Treaty of Accession for a new member state – Croatia or Iceland).  The main difference between this international treaty and a  protocol to an EU Treaty is that an international treaty, while binding on the signatories, does not have an enforcement mechanism. An EU treaty and any protocol to it becomes part of EU law and is enforceable by the European Court of Justice in the same way as other EU laws."


----------



## Latrade (22 Sep 2009)

Ancutza said:


> What new international treaty is this?? Furthermore if it exists then why have we not been asked to vote on it too? Smoke and mirrors in my opinion.





Ancutza said:


> With regard to the solemn declaration, I'll take your point. But the fact is that NONE of the so-called guarantees hold any water legally. For them to do so would mean them being written into the Lisbon Treaty as Starlite correctly points out.




I think the guarantee issue needs clarification. In short, they were non-issues to begin with. 

Last time we had claims from some sections of the No side, they were wrong. There was no impact on neutrality, there was no capacity to impose common taxes, there was no capacity to impose legalised abortion, etc. 

When the government ran its "what went wrong" forum, these issue came up as being part of the reason. 

Part of the reason why there has been no change to the text is because there's no need to, they were myths. As an extreme example, this would be akin to writing to the Attorney General for a guarantee that you cannot be imprisoned under Road Traffic Legislation for driving while wearing a Hawaiian Shirt. You'll get the guarantee, because no such provision exists, but the legislation doesn't have to be changed.

And that's what most of these guarantees are solemn statements that the Lisbon Treaty does not impose or affect those issue. They're pretty powerful guarantees too and would give Ireland a lot of weight in terms of any potential court rulings. 

So in effect: there's no need for any new Treaty or text.

Some issues will, such as the commissioner one. And Europe did have to tread carefully with these. For example Ireland wanted the Treaty text changed to insist these weren't covered, unnecessary, but it'd look good for the folks back home. Of course states like the UK and Poland were apoplectic, if Ireland gets its way, they'd want their way too.

As for voting on a new Treaty, look out for the ballot, it may contain text there, I'm not sure. However, note that not all treaties require a referendum, the Supreme Court decision only relates to Foreign Policy Co-operation. There's even an argument that Lisbon may not actually need a referendum...


----------



## Purple (22 Sep 2009)

Excellent post Latrade


----------



## Caveat (22 Sep 2009)

Got a leaflet from this shower yesterday [broken link removed] 

The 'information leaflet' is on the top the left of the page on the link.

Anyone know who these clowns are?


----------



## VOR (22 Sep 2009)

It's "p_roduced by the Danish, Finnish, French and UK delegations in the EFD Group"_ Site under construction. http://www.efdgroup.eu/


I prefer this information leaflets. Informative and funny!!!

http://www.jasonomahony.ie/The_Improved_Spoofers_Guide_To_The_Lisbon_Treaty.pdf


----------



## Purple (22 Sep 2009)

Excellent link VOR


----------



## secman (22 Sep 2009)

My understanding was that the treaty had to be ratified by all member states for it to be carried ? We were told in the first referendum that we were wrong to vote No, but we were obviously right to do so , as they have made some changes - retaining a commissioner., being one that springs to mind. So how do we know if it is still wrong for us ? 

We now have a situation that the recent countries brought in are " yellow pack" members ! 

We in Ireland still do not avail of several of the "sweeteners " that we are supposed to avail of 

E.G VRT - we are being ripped off here big time by our Govt
Cost of pharmacueticasl products

We absolutely sold our fishing rights down the swanney, its pityful to visit our fishing ports. 

On a very simple note, I personally would NEVER EVER sign anything that I do not fully understand, yet I am being bullied to do so here. The politicians that are pushing this, I suggest do not fully understand it either.

I am not anti Europe, just am very dubious of this treaty. 

I am also aware of the Looney Tune brigade pushing a NO vote, but I completely ignore their red herring arguements.

I would also suggest that if the citizens of U.K, France and Holland got an opportunity to vote on it I would be absolutely amazed if it was carried, we are no different.

Secman


----------



## Purple (22 Sep 2009)

I have done quite a bit of reading on this and I am voting yes but I do not have the time to read the treaty itself (I work, I have four kids etc). Therefore I, along with my fellow citizens, employ politicians to spend all of their time on these and other national issues. If I don’t like the job they are doing I vote against them and hope others agree with me. This is called representative democracy. The notion that the voting public has the time or inclination to understand complex international treaties is laughable. This is a case study in why referenda are a bad idea. 

BTW, I am anti-neutrality and am in favour of a federal Europe. IMO this treaty goes nowhere near far enough toward a federal state and it copper-fastens our cowardly non-aligned military position. Despite that it’s still better than what’s there now.


----------



## michaelm (22 Sep 2009)

Those happy for their lives to be governed by EU politicians and a European Court unaccountable to the Irish people should of course - putting aside any nagging doubts in relation to the way in which the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty is being railroaded through across the EU and turning a blind eye to the No votes in France, Holland and last June's No in Ireland and what that says about our EU political masters view of the people - vote Yes.

Those opposed to a Federal EU model should or concerned with democratic principle should, IMHO, vote No.

People should not be bullied or frightened into voting Yes, the sky will not fall in if Lisbon is defeated.


----------



## Purple (22 Sep 2009)

michaelm said:


> Those happy for their lives to be governed by EU politicians and a European Court unaccountable to the Irish people



They are just as accountable to an Irish person as any other EU citizen and more accountable to an Irish citizen  than Irish courts.


----------



## Latrade (22 Sep 2009)

michaelm said:


> Those happy for their lives to be governed by EU politicians and a European Court unaccountable to the Irish people should of course - putting aside any nagging doubts in relation to the way in which the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty is being railroaded through across the EU and turning a blind eye to the No votes in France, Holland and last June's No in Ireland and what that says about our EU political masters view of the people - vote Yes.





michaelm said:


> Those opposed to a Federal EU model should or concerned with democratic principle should, IMHO, vote No.
> 
> People should not be bullied or frightened into voting Yes, the sky will not fall in if Lisbon is defeated.




Apologies in advance for being blunt but: pure hyperbolic nonsense.

First, you've stated before about the Federal State. Now give me one quote from the Treaty that provides for this, references it or even hints that this might be possible. Just one tiny quote. 

If you do find one, then explain to me how this means a Federal State. You see the problem with that argument is that there is no new power given to Europe outside the stuff already agreed via previous referendums. So if we currently have sovereignty, how does that change when the text is the same as the stuff we already said yes to? 

Before you use emotive language such as railroading at least pay some respect to what actually happened. There was proposed Constitution. Two states said No and guess what? They dropped it and removed it. How is that railroading? To me that’s respect for the democratic decisions of two states.

Then look at the old Constitution and the Treaty and understand the difference in language and content. Don’t assume, don’t guess and don’t buy into any of the myths put about by extremes on the left and right. Read it.

Those opposed to a Federal Europe is every one. Do you honestly think countries that fought long and bloody wars to be independent would suddenly just decide to hand over power to another dictatorship? Honestly? Is your own blinkered view so clouded?

In other posts you’ve stated that you think we should have Europe for trade and movement of people. And, well, that’s all we do have in the main . The problem is to have trade and movement of people, you need rules and organisation. To not have standards and harmonisation would be like having a “passing of wind” section in a lift or a “urination” section of a swimming pool: utterly useless. 

That’s why legislation stretches outside of standard stuff to do with bananas and into important stuff to do with employment law and standards, environment, etc. Largely because if one state has good standards, then other states can (and did) have no standards and affect competition. Same standards for everyone, equal trade. 

And then we open up the borders. This doesn’t just mean we get to take the OH on a weekend break to make up for the state we got into at the stag do the other month, it means we then get problems relating to marriage, divorce, children, crime, terrorism. Again, to have it so we can take advantage of a Ryan Air offer, we have to have other rules.

Your utopia is a complete unrealistic pipe dream. And if you do think we’d be better off, then wind back the clock 20 or 30 years. Then tell me we’d be better off without the EU. It’s like someone feeding off the benefit for the last 20 years for everything they can claim for, winning the lotto and suddenly deciding that they’re disgusted with all these benefit scroungers and they should just get off their bums and into work…

People shouldn’t be mislead by pure nonsensical paranoid rants either. It’s simple, don’t just give opinion, give some facts to support it and then maybe it’s a better more reasoned debate.


----------



## bb12 (22 Sep 2009)

ancutza said:


> the 'yes' campaign is purely based on fear and shoring-up the gravy train for failed eu policy makers everywhere.
> 
> As in favour as i am of ireland continuing to be at the heart of europe (believe it or not i _do _actually think so) the lisbon treaty is an inequitable way forward for us which will erode our sovereinty further and push us into second class status within the eu.
> 
> The eu has utterly no respect for democracy otherwise it would have respected our first vote.  Equally our elected officials have no respect for us.  They are going to sell our small island down the river and, when they've done that, they are going inflict nama on us to save their mates from the galway tent and all the greedy bankers at the expense of us,our kids and our grandkids.  A spectacular double whammy which you are advocating. For shame!



+1


----------



## michaelm (22 Sep 2009)

Latrade said:


> Apologies in advance for being blunt . .


Knock yourself out.





Latrade said:


> You see the problem with that argument is that there is no new power given to Europe outside the stuff already agreed via previous referendums. So if we currently have sovereignty, how does that change when the text is the same as the stuff we already said yes to?


You're right, in a way;  we have little sovereignty left at this stage.  We no longer have control of our own currency or our interest rates, the vast majority of our laws are handed down from Europe and Tax is next.  Under Lisbon, as under Nice, we further dilute our voting weight while, at the same time, ceding more areas to QMV(68 more under Lisbon).  Would you not consider that a loss of sovereignty?





Latrade said:


> Those opposed to a Federal Europe is every one. Do you honestly think countries that fought long and bloody wars to be independent would suddenly just decide to hand over power to another dictatorship? Honestly? Is your own blinkered view so clouded?


If you believe that the end point of the EU project is not a Federal State and that Lisbon is not another step in that direction then perhaps it is you who is blinkered.

I expect Lisbon to be carried.  If so, I hope the claims by the Yes camp are proved correct . . that Lisbon is a benign tidy-up exercise that will create jobs, bring the recovery, fix global warming, protect workers wages and conditions, fight crime, terrorism and inequality, amongst other things . . and of course, put Ireland at the heart of Europe . . all the while Ireland's tax and social policies escape the attention of the ECJ.  I hope, but I doubt it.


----------



## Latrade (22 Sep 2009)

michaelm said:


> ....Tax is next.


 
In your opinion or can you find the bit in the Treaty that states this? Or does the actual text that means we retain control of our own text mean nothing? It’s just that the No camp point to some sections of the Treaty and say “this means we’ll all be conscripted”, but when you point to the bits in the same Treaty that categorically state this isn’t the case, we’re told not to believe those bits.

Mind, given the involvement of some fundamentalist religious organisations in the No camp, I suppose it’s only consistent that they tell us to have blind faith in certain parts of a text, but ignore the parts of the text that are contradictory to their position.



michaelm said:


> Under Lisbon, as under Nice, we further dilute our voting weight while, at the same time, ceding more areas to QMV(68 more under Lisbon). Would you not consider that a loss of sovereignty? If you believe that the end point of the EU project is not a Federal State and that Lisbon is not another step in that direction then perhaps it is you who is blinkered.




Nice stat that “68” more, but have you checked what those 68 include? There are actually on 5 areas where Europe has complete competence (i.e. it alone makes the decisions). All relate to trade and competition. However, as already pointed out, there are plenty of safety valves in place as a result of the new systems. 

In addition, nothing here is new. Since the very first referendum, we gave Europe the rights to enact laws on these issues. Are we to now disrespect the democratic process of previous years where we said Yes? And as explained, even in your utopia of Ireland on it’s own with only a trade and travel arrangement, these laws are necessary because of the can of worms opened by just those two things. 

The hang up on 4 million people having a proportionate voting weight out of 500 million really is clutching at straws. It makes for a fairer system, it means a better democracy. 

On the federal state business. I’m not daft, I know there are some states who would love a complete federal state. But there’s so many who don’t that it can’t happen even by the back door. As I said, there is no way those newly accented states after all their battles and history under the Soviet Union are going to relinquish all this to a centralised state. Same for the Brits, same for us, same for France, Spain, Greece, Italy, Portugal, or any other nation with a sense of sovereignty.




michaelm said:


> I expect Lisbon to be carried. If so I hope the claims by the Yes camp are proved correct . . that Lisbon is a benign tidy-up exercise that will create jobs, bring the recovery, fix global warming, protect workers wages and conditions, fight crime, terrorism and inequality, amongst other things . . and of course, put Ireland at the heart of Europe . . all the while Ireland's tax and social policies escape the attention of the ECJ. I hope, but I doubt it.


 
What’s the ECJ got to do with this? Again which part of the opt outs or explicit statements relating to Ireland (and all other Member States) setting their own rules on these things isn’t clear enough?


----------



## Pique318 (22 Sep 2009)

michaelm said:


> ...put Ireland at the heart of Europe.


What right do we have to be at the 'Heart of Europe' ?
We have no defence forces worth a hoot, no industry - indigenous or otherwise, no manufacturing, no natural reserves (apart from a bit of gas that we sold to a private entity already), no political muscle, no financial sector with any reputation...and yet we hope - nay, expect, to be at the heart of Europe and dictate to the rest that this is the way it's gonna be, 'cos we said so.

Please !!

We're the little kid in the gang, who really does nothing to help the others that they couldn't do themselves but we get money from our richer mates anyway. We won't fight off bullies out of principle but yet we expect our mates to do it on our behalf. People outside our gang like us 'cos we're good craic and non-offensive but they live too far away for us to join their gang instead. However, if we keep telling the rest of our gang what they can & can't do, sooner or later the money stops coming and then they give us a good thump and tell us to STFU and cop ourselves on.


----------



## michaelm (22 Sep 2009)

Latrade said:


> In your opinion or can you find the bit in the Treaty that states this?


Come on, it's all opinion/interpretation, my view and yours.





Latrade said:


> What’s the ECJ got to do with this?


We a signing up to an EU Charter of Rights which will supplant our Irish charter, our Constitution.  The ECJ will interpret this new Charter (as it has already done in various cases e.g. allowing a Polish company to employ Polish workers in Germany at less than the German minimum wage).  We have no mechanism/power to undo any spurious ECJ decisions, political promises notwithstanding.  Don't think these things happen?  In 1983 we provided for the right to life of the unborn in our Constitution, the dogs in the street knew what it meant - a ban on abortion; but in 1992 the Supreme Court decided it in fact meant abortions for all.  That I have concerns about the ECJ and you don't might just mean that I'm not a free-thinking or progressive as you.


----------



## Latrade (22 Sep 2009)

michaelm said:


> Come on, it's all opinion/interpretation, my view and yours.


Ordinarily on forums yes, that would be the case. But not here, there’s text in place that’s pretty explicit and not open to interpretation and that relates to security, social policy, taxation and others remaining under individual member state control.

It really cannot be more explicitly laid out in text.




michaelm said:


> We a signing up to an EU Charter of Rights which will supplant our Irish charter, our Constitution. The ECJ will interpret this new Charter (as it has already done in various cases e.g. allowing a Polish company to employ Polish workers in Germany at less than the German minimum wage). We have no mechanism/power to undo any spurious ECJ decisions, political promises notwithstanding. Don't think these things happen? In 1983 we provided for the right to life of the unborn in our Constitution, the dogs in the street knew what it meant - a ban on abortion; but in 1992 the Supreme Court decided it in fact meant abortions for all. That I have concerns about the ECJ and you don't might just mean that I'm not a free-thinking or progressive as you.


 
We already are signed up to the Charter and it does not under any remit whatsoever impact our Constitution. It means that any legislation from Europe and member states must attain certain human rights. As we already subscribe to it, it means we go on as we are.

The issue on abortion is a non-issue, there Europe has included in numerous texts that Ireland has the right to decide on that issue. The ECJ cannot affect, there is nothing in the Charter that can either. I’m not sure how many times the EU can reiterate this point over the last 26 years. 

Yes we get dummy decisions from the courts, we get dummy ones here in the Supreme Court as you say (though that’s the Supreme Court making a decision not the ECJ). Yes they made the decision regarding the Polish workers (one for the employers), but they’ve also set ones for employees (such as a recent decision on Working Time). Again, courts are like that, some you win some you lose. It’s no different to our own Courts other than adding an avenue to appeal.


----------



## csirl (22 Sep 2009)

I voted No the first time around because I consider the EU to have democratic deficit. The fact that we are being told to vote again on the issue because we didnt vote Yes proves this.

We should be championing democracy not eroding it. People conveniently forget that most of our EU partners are only a generation or less removed from dictatorship and a lot of them still have unelected heads of State. They don't value democracy as much as they should.


----------



## Pique318 (22 Sep 2009)

csirl said:


> People conveniently forget that most of our EU partners are only a generation or less removed from dictatorship
> ...
> They don't value democracy as much as they should.



How in the world can these 2 statements be linked?


----------



## Latrade (22 Sep 2009)

csirl said:


> We should be championing democracy not eroding it. People conveniently forget that most of our EU partners are only a generation or less removed from dictatorship and a lot of them still have unelected heads of State. They don't value democracy as much as they should.


 
What? Are you serious? Here's the list of Member States, please indicate which ones have unelected heads of state (bearing in mind that democratically elected representative bodies is one of the core requirements of membership to the EU).

Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czech Republic 
Cyprus 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
[FONT=Arial,Arial]United Kingdom 
[/FONT]


----------



## secman (22 Sep 2009)

Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czech Republic 
Cyprus 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
[FONT=Arial,Arial]United Kingdom 
[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial][/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Arial]When you actuall look at the above list of countries ,[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial]the diversities of them just make my mind up, we are trying to have a one fix rule for all ! [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial]We are taking a model too far for its own good. There are already "yellow pack" members, how does this stack up with the treaty ?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial][/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Arial]I have 2 simple rules for life and often preach them to the kids[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial][/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Arial]Don't do to others what you would not like done to you.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial]Too much of anything is bad for you .[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial][/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Arial]The treaty is failing the rules ! [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial][/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Arial]Secman
[/FONT]


----------



## starlite68 (22 Sep 2009)

the real fun will start in a few years when turkey...with its huge muslim population gets to join! i wonder will it still be laughably called the 'European Union'


----------



## Latrade (22 Sep 2009)

starlite68 said:


> the real fun will start in a few years when turkey...with its huge muslim population gets to join! i wonder will it still be laughably called the 'European Union'


 
Actually, Turkey still has a long way to go in terms of meeting the criteria on human rights and over legal issues. 

However, how would a huge muslim population make any difference?


----------



## csirl (22 Sep 2009)

Latrade said:


> What? Are you serious? Here's the list of Member States, please indicate which ones have unelected heads of state (bearing in mind that democratically elected representative bodies is one of the core requirements of membership to the EU).
> 
> Austria
> Belgium
> ...


 
The following EU States from the list above have unelected Heads of State:

Belgium
Denmark
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom

The fact that the EU capital is located in one of these States shows how much regard the EU has for democracy.


----------



## michaelm (22 Sep 2009)

Latrade said:


> Yes we get dummy decisions from the courts, we get dummy ones here in the Supreme Court as you say (though that’s the Supreme Court making a decision not the ECJ). Yes they made the decision regarding the Polish workers (one for the employers), but they’ve also set ones for employees (such as a recent decision on Working Time). Again, courts are like that, some you win some you lose. It’s no different to our own Courts other than adding an avenue to appeal.


The difference is that we can undo a decision of the Irish Supreme Court by way of Referendum, something we can't do with the ECJ.  Should the ECJ continue to undermine wages by allowing imported workers to undercut local minimum wages (as they have already done) or interpret the Charter's Right to Dignity in a manner to legalise euthanasia or the decide availability of Services should trump any protocol prohibiting abortion or that our tax regime is in a distortion of competition  . . then our politicians will say that their hand are tied . . and ask 'sure anyway didn't the people vote for it?'


----------



## Sunny (22 Sep 2009)

michaelm said:


> The difference is that we can undo a decision of the Irish Supreme Court by way of Referendum, something we can't do with the ECJ. Should the ECJ continue to undermine wages by allowing imported workers to undercut local minimum wages (as they have already done) or interpret the Charter's Right to Dignity in a manner to legalise euthanasia or the decide availability of Services should trump any protocol prohibiting abortion or that our tax regime is in a distortion of competition . . then our politicians will say that their hand are tied . . and ask 'sure anyway didn't the people vote for it?'


 
How do the ECJ undermine wages by allowing imported workers undercut local minimum wages? Its rubbish to suggest that the ECJ allows companies here to ignore national minimum wage legislation.


----------



## michaelm (22 Sep 2009)

Sunny said:


> How do the ECJ undermine wages by allowing imported workers undercut local minimum wages? Its rubbish to suggest that the ECJ allows companies here to ignore national minimum wage legislation.


Of course that's not what I said.  I said 'undermine wages'.  The ECJ, with reference to the Charter which becomes legally binding after Lisbon, already allows foreign companies to import workers and pay less than local minimum wage.  This puts local companies at a disadvantage and our minimum wage starts to look like an obstacle to job creation.  Our Government has already said that they will tackle the minimum wage if it becomes an obstacle to employment.  It's a vicious circle which puts the right to a profit ahead of the right to a decent wage.


----------



## Sunny (22 Sep 2009)

michaelm said:


> Of course that's not what I said. I said 'undermine wages'. The ECJ, with reference to the Charter which becomes legally binding after Lisbon, already allows foreign companies to import workers and pay less than local minimum wage. This puts local companies at a disadvantage and our minimum wage starts to look like an obstacle to job creation. Our Government has already said that they will tackle the minimum wage if it becomes an obstacle to employment. It's a vicious circle which puts the right to a profit ahead of the right to a decent wage.


 
No it doesn't allow companies to import workers and pay them less. They must be paid the national minimum wage set in legislation or are entitled to the same benefits under any legally binding collective agreements. What precedent allows that? You might be referring to the Laval case in Sweden but you should read up on it again because that is not what the ECJ ruled.


----------



## Latrade (22 Sep 2009)

csirl said:


> The following EU States from the list above have unelected Heads of State:





csirl said:


> Belgium
> Denmark
> Luxembourg
> Netherlands
> ...




Touché. However, hardly the “most” you stated. And considering the all have democratically elected systems of governance by which their heads of state are accountable to the citizens, hardly a bunch of despots.




michaelm said:


> The difference is that we can undo a decision of the Irish Supreme Court by way of Referendum, something we can't do with the ECJ. Should the ECJ continue to undermine wages by allowing imported workers to undercut local minimum wages (as they have already done) or interpret the Charter's Right to Dignity in a manner to legalise euthanasia or the decide availability of Services should trump any protocol prohibiting abortion or that our tax regime is in a distortion of competition . . then our politicians will say that their hand are tied . . and ask 'sure anyway didn't the people vote for it?'


 
One decision by the ECJ that was hamstrung because of the current provisions. Not to say those provisions change under Lisbon, but they can change through the EU process. However, there have been plenty of “worker friendly” decisions, plenty. So to say that they are focused on reducing wages is misleading.

Ifs, buts and maybes. I guess despite of wording that means this can’t happen is irrelevant. I suppose clear statements that would be binding on ratification aren’t enough.


----------



## michaelm (22 Sep 2009)

Sunny said:


> No it doesn't allow companies to import workers and pay them less. They must be paid the national minimum wage set in legislation or are entitled to the same benefits under any legally binding collective agreements. What precedent allows that? You might be referring to the Laval case in Sweden but you should read up on it again because that is not what the ECJ ruled.


Indeed.  I'm afraid you are wrong on all counts.  I'm referring to the Rüffert case were the minimum was was indeed undercut and this was sanctioned by the ECJ.


----------



## starlite68 (23 Sep 2009)

Latrade said:


> Actually, Turkey still has a long way to go in terms of meeting the criteria on human rights and over legal issues.
> 
> However, how would a huge muslim population make any difference?


 you will find it wont be as long as you think! ...rapid expansion seems to be the new 'order of the day'


----------



## Latrade (23 Sep 2009)

....

*In hindsight my original reply to the Rüffert case was misleading and intened to flame the discussion. I've since had a smoke and a coffee and feel I erred. I've kept it posted below though, but it should be ignored.*




michaelm said:


> Indeed. I'm afraid you are wrong on all counts. I'm referring to the Rüffert case were the minimum was was indeed undercut and this was sanctioned by the ECJ.


 
It's actually a good case to use to actually disprove your own point, when you give the full facts. Largely because there is negotiation and discussion to legislate for the implications...though unions have missed a very big point.

The collective agreement that was said to be in place (stating that contractors will pay at the agreed minimum rate) wasn't actually officially sanctioned under German law, so it turns out this was all huff. The ruling is that if I'm a Polish contractor and I tender for work in Ireland, sending over my employees to that state, then I pay them at the rates I agreed in their initial contracts. I don't suddenly have to pay them at the Irish minimum wage. I'm sorry, but that's just common sense. 

Oddly enough, for all the super state believers, here's a ECJ case that confirms the sovereignty of individual member states over so-called super state principles. As I say, good case to pick.

It doesn't affect domestic workers, only workers posted abroad. 

There's move to get the Posted Workers Directive ammended, but this makes no sense. The opposite effect of the union's calls is that if I work for an Irish employer and am then posted to Poland, I'd have to be paid at the Polish minimum wage, i.e. take a pay cut. 

In that case there was nothing the ECJ could do. There was no legally binding agreement, the employees had contracts in their native state which were agreed and legally binding.

Oddly enough, for all the super state believers, here's a ECJ case that confirms the sovereignty of individual member states over centralised Europe. Isn't that a good thing?


----------



## Sunny (23 Sep 2009)

michaelm said:


> Indeed. I'm afraid you are wrong on all counts. I'm referring to the Rüffert case were the minimum was was indeed undercut and this was sanctioned by the ECJ.


 
Again, read the case and judgement and tell me where it says people can be employed for less than the national minimum wage. Nobody can work in Ireland for less than the minimum wage. If the Government want to get some Polish firm to build a hospital and the firm send over a boat full of Polish workers, they have to be paid the Irish minimum wage as set out in our National Laws. Do you really think the trade unions would be supporting a yes vote if they thought the minimum wage could be disregarded by foreign firms?


----------



## Shawady (24 Sep 2009)

I believe Michael O'Leary and Declan Ganley will be debating Lisbon on Prime Time tonight. Should be entertaining........


----------



## VOR (24 Sep 2009)

Shawady said:


> I believe Michael O'Leary and Declan Ganley will be debating Lisbon on Prime Time tonight. Should be entertaining........


 
They will need a 5 second delay to bleep out the language.


----------



## michaelm (24 Sep 2009)

Shawady said:


> I believe Michael O'Leary and Declan Ganley will be debating Lisbon on Prime Time tonight. Should be entertaining........


Entertaining indeed.  I like O'Leary, he has a brass neck and is usually a straight talker.  

I hope they ask him how he can justify spending half a million euro of shareholders money promoting Lisbon, but hope they don't let him off with the "the shareholders will have to trust the Board" defence.  No doubt Ganley will put it to him that he said, in Brussels after Lisbon 1, ‘‘It seems that only in the European Union, Ireland and Zimbabwe you are forced to vote twice, the vote should be respected. It is the only democratic thing to do.” ([broken link removed]) . . and that he's trying to curry favor with the EU for his Ryanair adventures.

I doubt O'Leary could be arsed reading up on the Treaty so I expect him to bluster his way through.  Ganley should hold the upper hand on detail.


----------



## Pique318 (24 Sep 2009)

michaelm said:


> I doubt O'Leary could be arsed reading up on the Treaty so I expect him to bluster his way through.  Ganley should hold the upper hand on detail.


You hope!


----------



## michaelm (24 Sep 2009)

Pique318 said:


> You hope!


Na, I doubt.  I hope he has read up on it and we get a good debate. 

It's the Yes campaign that avoids the detail . . Yes for Jobs . . Yes to Recovery . . Yes to Europe . . We Belong . . in reality there is nothing in the Treaty on which these things depend and it is disingenuous to suggest, as they are doing, that No to Lisbon means no to these things.  

Then we have the likes of Padraig Walshe (IFA) telling Farmers to vote Yes because "we need access to the market 500m people", does he think that Farmers are stupid.  And we have Pat Cox, former President of the European Parliament and 5/4 favorite to be next Irish EU Commissioner, telling us he is a non-political concerned citizen . . then trying to frighten people into a Yes with comments like, a No vote would be “wholly negative”  and “We would be relegated to the second tier of a two-tier Europe along with Eurosceptic countries like Britain.” - The Yes campaign would sell their soul for a Yes vote.


----------



## Latrade (24 Sep 2009)

michaelm said:


> Na, I doubt. I hope he has read up on it and we get a good debate.
> 
> It's the Yes campaign that avoids the detail . . Yes for Jobs . . Yes to Recovery . . Yes to Europe . . We Belong . . in reality there is nothing in the Treaty on which these things depend and it is disingenuous to suggest, as they are doing, that No to Lisbon means no to these things.
> 
> Then we have the likes of Padraig Walshe (IFA) telling Farmers to vote Yes because "we need access to the market 500m people", does he think that Farmers are stupid. And we have Pat Cox, former President of the European Parliament and 5/4 favorite to be next Irish EU Commissioner, telling us he is a non-political concerned citizen . . then trying to frighten people into a Yes with comments like, a No vote would be “wholly negative” and “We would be relegated to the second tier of a two-tier Europe along with Eurosceptic countries like Britain.” - The Yes campaign would sell their soul for a Yes vote.


 
Do we need to rehash the No campaigns oh so virtuous and accurate interpretation of the Treaty? Do we need to rehash just who some of these have sold their souls for votes to?


----------



## Caveat (24 Sep 2009)

But will Ganley be cross examined on his alleged ulterior motives for advocating a No vote?  Probably, but he won't give a straight answer.


----------



## Sunny (24 Sep 2009)

michaelm said:


> Na, I doubt. I hope he has read up on it and we get a good debate.
> 
> It's the Yes campaign that avoids the detail . . Yes for Jobs . . Yes to Recovery . . Yes to Europe . . We Belong . . in reality there is nothing in the Treaty on which these things depend and it is disingenuous to suggest, as they are doing, that No to Lisbon means no to these things.
> 
> Then we have the likes of Padraig Walshe (IFA) telling Farmers to vote Yes because "we need access to the market 500m people", does he think that Farmers are stupid. And we have Pat Cox, former President of the European Parliament and 5/4 favorite to be next Irish EU Commissioner, telling us he is a non-political concerned citizen . . then trying to frighten people into a Yes with comments like, a No vote would be “wholly negative” and “We would be relegated to the second tier of a two-tier Europe along with Eurosceptic countries like Britain.” - The Yes campaign would sell their soul for a Yes vote.


 
The 'Yes' campaign may or may not be over exagerating the benefits of voting yes and the consequences of saying no but I for one see more positives than negatives.

The 'No' campaign on the other hand is using plain lies and fear for their agenda. You still haven't answered me where the ECJ has ruled that it is ok for the National Minimum Wage to be lowered. It's the problem with the 'No' campaign. It's all sweeping statements about minimum wages and abortion with no facts to back it up. Michael O Leary will wipe the floor with Declan Ganley because he is not politician.


----------



## michaelm (24 Sep 2009)

Latrade said:


> Do we need to rehash the No campaigns oh so virtuous and accurate interpretation of the Treaty? Do we need to rehash just who some of these have sold their souls for votes to?


Na, we need a smoke and a coffee.  You're like a sentinel, a one-man Battle Group, on this thread .





Caveat said:


> But will Ganley be cross examined on his alleged ulterior motives for advocating a No vote?  Probably, but he won't give a straight answer.


If he says he has none then it's only not a straight answer if you don't believe him.  Do Yes people really, honestly, believe that he is a CIA puppet?





Sunny said:


> The 'Yes' campaign may or may not be over exagerating the benefits of voting yes and the consequences of saying no but I for one see more positives than negatives.


May or may not?  Do you think they are or not?





Sunny said:


> You still haven't answered me where the ECJ has ruled that it is ok for the National Minimum Wage to be lowered. It's the problem with the 'No' campaign. It's all sweeping statements about minimum wages and abortion with no facts to back it up.


As I said before, I never made such a claim.  I said that the ECJ has undermined wages by allowing foreign companies to import workers and pay them wages that undercut agreed local minimum wages.  That is a fact.





Sunny said:


> Michael O Leary will wipe the floor with Declan Ganley because he is not politician.


Neither is Ganley, at best he's a wannabe politician, let's see what happens.


----------



## TarfHead (24 Sep 2009)

Some good 'Coir' posters here ..

http://www.creativeireland.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27670


----------



## Sunny (24 Sep 2009)

michaelm said:


> As I said before, I never made such a claim. I said that the ECJ has undermined wages by allowing foreign companies to import workers and pay them wages that undercut agreed local minimum wages.


 
Local minimum wage agreements that had no legal basis. So why is the No campaign saying the national minimum wage will become €1.84?


----------



## Sunny (24 Sep 2009)

TarfHead said:


> Some good 'Coir' posters here ..
> 
> http://www.creativeireland.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27670


 
I like it! Wonder is that where their real campaign slogans from


----------



## michaelm (24 Sep 2009)

TarfHead said:


> Some good 'Coir' posters here ..
> 
> http://www.creativeireland.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27670


LOL  What would Benji do?





Sunny said:


> Local minimum wage agreements that had no legal basis. So why is the No campaign saying the national minimum wage will become €1.84?


I don't believe they did.  They posed a question, hence the question mark.  They explain it, and their other posters, here.


----------



## Sunny (24 Sep 2009)

michaelm said:


> They posed a question, hence the question mark. They explain it, and their other posters, here.


 
Oh my God, that is scary. I am afraid to see what they say about abortion! I have never read such a mis-representations and rubbish written about a subject before. Do people actually fall for this crap?


----------



## Caveat (24 Sep 2009)

michaelm said:


> Do Yes people really, honestly, believe that he is a CIA puppet?


 
I wouldn't put it like that. But I do believe his motives are questionable to say the least.


----------



## michaelm (24 Sep 2009)

Sunny said:


> Oh my God, that is scary.


Maybe you scare easily.  That the public scare easily is what the EU political classes are banking on.


----------



## starlite68 (24 Sep 2009)

oleary is only thinking of his own interests as usually..whatever is good for micheal oleary is all that counts to him! a man who cannot be trusted.


----------



## VOR (24 Sep 2009)

starlite68 said:


> oleary is only thinking of his own interests as usually..whatever is good for micheal oleary is all that counts to him! a man who cannot be trusted.


 
Perhaps. But what are Ganley's interests???

"DECLAN GANLEY'S US business, Rivada Networks, is involved in contracts with the *US military* and other public bodies that could be worth up to $240 million, a company spokesman has said to _The Irish Times._ "

[broken link removed]


----------



## Ancutza (24 Sep 2009)

What relevance has any of that got to him being opposed to a federal europe?  So the guy has a business.  So the US military is a client....and???  If you want to get upset about some party involved in the Lisbon vote being friendly with the US military then perhaps you'd like to consider the use of Shannon airport by the same said military with the approval of our government in spite of our neutral stance.  Neither really has any relevance although one relationship might be considered a bit more mucky than the other.  I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions as to which.

Incidentally.  Say the Irish electorate votes 'Yes' this time around, can we do it again next year and, if not, why not?


----------



## starlite68 (24 Sep 2009)

Ancutza said:


> What relevance has any of that got to him being opposed to a federal europe? So the guy has a business. So the US military is a client....and??? If you want to get upset about some party involved in the Lisbon vote being friendly with the US military then perhaps you'd like to consider the use of Shannon airport by the same said military with the approval of our government in spite of our neutral stance. Neither really has any relevance although one relationship might be considered a bit more mucky than the other. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions as to which.
> 
> Incidentally. Say the Irish electorate votes 'Yes' this time around, can we do it again next year and, if not, why not?


agree....great post


----------



## michaelm (25 Sep 2009)

Whether for or against Lisbon one surely will get a smile from this . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLMfcoSCY08


----------



## Caveat (25 Sep 2009)

Ancutza said:


> What relevance has any of that got to him being opposed to a federal europe?



The idea that the US military and associated interests (an extremely lucrative business interest for DG's empire) are in general, opposed to the possibility of a federal Europe, that's what.

BTW, here is a site I have just discovered puporting to expose the propoganda/lies:



No connection or no comment. No idea of the quality, it was merely suggested so I googled and linked. I haven't looked at it yet.

I'm off to bed.


----------



## Peter C (25 Sep 2009)

I respect the fact that we are a population of 4 million out of 500 million but as a Nation / Member State etc are we not supposed to have representation at the table where decisions are made that can have both positive and negative effects on this country ? Without full time representation we don't get to put our case for the positive or express our concerns at what we feel would be negative. My understanding is the first vote was asking us to agree to the removal of a commissioner and share the seat on a rotating basis, surely such a position is to be fought for not given away ? I believe the fact that our politicians were telling us to vote away our advantage is why so many do not trust what they are telling us now. 

O'Leary V Ganley

Another farce the best O'Leary could come up with was Dana did better than Ganley in a previous election, sure he is boss of a big company that employs a lot of people, from my chair he had nothing of relevance to say that would help a person decide in favour of the treaty, in fact he may have done damage with his bully boy display. Depending on your point of view Ganley didn't appear to do much damage, to be honest I would have to see it again to ignore O'Leary and concentrate on what Ganley contributed.


----------



## starlite68 (25 Sep 2009)

oleary made it clear where he stands on workers rights! he is a bully and should be giving no air time.....anyone listening to him will surely vote no.


----------



## Ceist Beag (25 Sep 2009)

starlite68 said:


> oleary made it clear where he stands on workers rights! he is a bully and should be giving no air time.....anyone listening to him will surely vote no.



surely!  ... or maybe anyone can make up their own mind and not be swayed by two egomaniacs like O'Leary and Ganley!!


----------



## Ceist Beag (25 Sep 2009)

Just on the debates on Prime Time last night, for me the one outstanding argument made out of all of them was where Pat Cox pointed out the hypocrisy of Sinn Fein in claiming the legal guarantees offer no protection when the exact same notion of legal guarantees were used to great effect (and supported completely by Sinn Fein) in the Belfast Agreement.


----------



## Pique318 (25 Sep 2009)

Did anyone think it was ironic that Mary Lou was bleating on about the neutrality aspect and that Ireland will be forced to send it's army to the aid of others.

This from a woman in a party that had its own illegal army for 3 years.

O'Leary was pretty crap, tbh. But as a businessman he gave his point. 
Pat Cox & Micheal MArtin won their respective debates. Thought Joe Higgins was out of his depth.


----------



## VOR (25 Sep 2009)

Sinn Fein are a joke. I have a poster not far from my house asking people to vote No. It says "Lisbon = more military spending. Vote NO" 
I really hope Sinn Fein see the irony in they, of all people, wanting less spending on weapons.


----------



## shanegl (25 Sep 2009)

> My understanding is the first vote was asking us to agree to the removal of a commissioner and share the seat on a rotating basis, surely such a position is to be fought for not given away ? I believe the fact that our politicians were telling us to vote away our advantage is why so many do not trust what they are telling us now.



Not this old chestnut. Libertas did a great job with this lie last time. We lose our commissioner under Nice anyway.


----------



## onq (25 Sep 2009)

VOR said:


> Perhaps. But what are Ganley's interests???
> 
> "DECLAN GANLEY'S US business, Rivada Networks, is involved in contracts with the *US military* and other public bodies that could be worth up to $240 million, a company spokesman has said to _The Irish Times._ "
> 
> [broken link removed]



Ganley is an odd fish.

Perhaps he was there to draw out the venom last year, only he did the job too well, or perhaps this was a total set up, with the economic crash designed to bring us to heel and crush our spirit at the same time. I dunno.

Ganley looks like an SAS man in a suit.
Freaks me out in ways I can't explain.

FWIW.

ONQ.


----------



## Shawady (25 Sep 2009)

shanegl said:


> Not this old chestnut. Libertas did a great job with this lie last time. We lose our commissioner under Nice anyway.


 
There was talk recently that Mary Coughlan might be given the next commisioner job as a sweetener to get her out of her current post. If she was representing us in the European parliament, I think I would prefer to lose our commisioner.


----------



## shanegl (25 Sep 2009)

And keep her as Tanaiste?


----------



## Shawady (25 Sep 2009)

I suppose option C of just removing her from government will never happen unless there is more pressure over the FAS controversy.


----------



## ninsaga (25 Sep 2009)

Don't know what is is about Ganley that gives me a sense of unease - maybe because I think he wants a No vote for personal reasons v's 'for the better of the Irish people'

Gotta hand it to him that he performed well on the debate - he out classed O'Leary who could only say vote Yes because he is a major Irish employer & that Ganley was a failed politician - O'Leary shown as for the arrogant thug that he commonly portrays.


----------



## VOR (25 Sep 2009)

Ancutza said:


> What relevance has any of that got to him being opposed to a federal europe? So the guy has a business. So the US military is a client....and??? If you want to get upset about some party involved in the Lisbon vote being friendly with the US military then perhaps you'd like to consider the use of Shannon airport by the same said military with the approval of our government in spite of our neutral stance. Neither really has any relevance although one relationship might be considered a bit more mucky than the other. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions as to which.
> 
> Incidentally. Say the Irish electorate votes 'Yes' this time around, can we do it again next year and, if not, why not?


 
There is nothing wrong with flying the American flag . I have stood under it manys a time to sing their anthem but hiding it from the cameras is a bit suspect....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMRP_TqBzr0&feature=player_embedded

I wonder did he put up an EU won to replace it. I have one at home if he wants to borrow it.


----------



## Ancutza (27 Sep 2009)

Many is the person that displayed a national flag beside their own for a meeting in their office.  I'm 100% positive I've got a Romanian one and, nearly sure, even a Serbian one kicking round somewhere.

As to the 'greater good'..is anyone SO naive as to think that there is a single main-political-party-aligned TD in Ireland that has anything in mind other than his own self interest?  Lisbon is about a train with 'GRAVY' written on it's nameplate.

Vote 'Yes' to Lisbon and you'll get NAMA.  When the reality of that one has sunk home and O'Leary has given everyone the option of cheap flights out of the country would the last person to leave please turn off the lights.


----------



## Bluebells (28 Sep 2009)

What really annoys me is that the people who destroyed our economy, turned Irish Politics into a dirty word, and our society into one thats all law, and no order,  are telling me I should vote Yes. The same ones who hide behind Reports, Commissions, Authorities, Executives and Councils, and who never give a straight answer. 

The Opposition, are telling me to vote Yes because they are petrified that there will an Election if the Treaty is voted down, and then _they_ will have to sort out the mess we are now in.

Michael O Leary is telling me to vote Yes, because he is trying to curry favour with Europe and the Government for his next takeover bid for Aer Lingus.

The IFA are telling me to vote yes, as are the Trade Unions because they know that there will be retribution from the Government if they don't.

Everybody else is trotting out the line that "things have changed since the last vote, and we are now in a different economic climate ". So what ? The Treaty is the same. Using the 'changed economy'  and  the 'we need the financial support of Europe' argument, seems like coercion to me.


----------



## Madangan (28 Sep 2009)

I will be voting yes. I would prefer that the Lisbon teaty never existed  but it does. That being so  I have to decide whether its best  for us to be outside lookin in or inside lookin out! And I dont mean the EU..I know we cant be thrown, out... what I mean is the  club of "good members".  

So do I believe  Ganley who makes my skin crawl and the, for the most part, the nutters on the No side or all the rest of our body politic. Ultimately I cannot see FF FG and Labour all wanting us to say Yes if  the Treaty is so bad for Ireland.

Anyway as to respecting the wishes of the Irish people  given that this is the same Irish people who have re-elected Bertie and Brian less than 2 years ago I have to assume that the electorate is not infallible

I wavered right up till the lastminute last time but the ridiculous posters this time of the NO side made up my mind for me very  very quickly!!!


----------



## Madangan (28 Sep 2009)

Oh and  PS..my inner republican does not take kindly by being patronised by the likes of UKIP... with or without their Leprechaun hats!!!


----------



## Latrade (28 Sep 2009)

Ancutza said:


> Incidentally. Say the Irish electorate votes 'Yes' this time around, can we do it again next year and, if not, why not?


 
We should have a change in the constitution that referendums are the best out of three.




Ancutza said:


> What relevance has any of that got to him being opposed to a federal europe? So the guy has a business. So the US military is a client....and???




It goes a bit deeper than this, but it’s still supposition. However, the media have asked where the funding from Libertas has come from, it’s a question he has never answered. 

Last, not pointing towards any particular theories on Ganley, but: his company has senior US military officials acting on its board. Several of these made public statements many years ago when Europe first began negotiating a Constitution. They didn’t want Europe to work towards any military agreement. Essentially, the bit in the Treaty that says where your borders are under threat, Europe doesn’t have to go through NATO (ergo the US) and can take its own action. (Though Ireland doesn’t have to as per its neutrality).

As well as that, the EDA negotiates common cost rates for equipment, arms and weaponry, whereas before individual states had to negotiate on their own. In addition, the EDA helps with R&D at a European level.

It’s more the fact that a total (and growing) population of 500 million, controlling its own military(ies) that freaks out the Americans. They quite like telling us which wars we can fight in…and supplying the equipment…etc, etc.

So they were against it, they (the current directors of Ganley’s company) wrote articles in American defence magazines. One even said they should form a political party in Europe to end the Constitution and to make sure Europe remains subservient to the US. He even suggested a name for the party: Libertas. This was about 8 years ago.

Not sure if that’s all a coincidence though.





Peter C said:


> I respect the fact that we are a population of 4 million out of 500 million but as a Nation / Member State etc are we not supposed to have representation at the table where decisions are made that can have both positive and negative effects on this country ? Without full time representation we don't get to put our case for the positive or express our concerns at what we feel would be negative.


 
The loss of a Commissioner doesn’t affect this. Remember the Commissioner can only vote for what’s best for Europe, not Ireland. The voting loss is another issue, but voting power is lost, but not influence. 

Think of the Eurovision song contest. How all the Eastern European States can effectively “gang up” and create the winners. That’s a bit like Europe at the moment, too many can gang up and set an agenda (whether large or small states). The new system while on paper reducing Ireland’s votes, actually means that by requiring both a number of votes and percentage of the population to pass an issue, that neither big nor small states can have such an obstructive influence.

The other point is to not underestimate Ireland’s voice in Europe. Whenever there’s a conference/junket in the new states (and those yet to join), there’s one country they look to for advice and information and that’s here. The ILO regularly uses various Irish representatives as a selling point in its own conferences and seminars. 

This respect and influence is not tangible, but it’s worth more than any vote you can imagine.


----------



## Latrade (28 Sep 2009)

Madangan said:


> Oh and PS..my inner republican does not take kindly by being patronised by the likes of UKIP... with or without their Leprechaun hats!!!


 
The Times ran a picture with the UKIP members in their "respect the Irish" attire (must remember that bit when they celebrate Cromwell). That one picture alone could be good for an overwhelming Yes.


----------



## csirl (28 Sep 2009)

I'm going to vote No in all future EU referenda until the EU insists on getting rid of unelected heads of State among its membership. In this day and age, there is no place for unelected feudal monarchs. EU should be promoting democracy, not pandering to the unelected.


----------



## DublinTexas (28 Sep 2009)

Well now that according to the latest opinion polls the fear mongers have bullied the Irish electorate into accepting a repeated vote based on “guarantees” I think it’s time to accept that those in power in Ireland will never accept the will of the people if it does not match their own.

Once the so called “guarantees” will fall apart the swing voters will realize that they once again have been dubbed into doing their masters will.

Once the miracle recovery that a yes vote will guarantee (as promised by the rulers ) is not happening they will realize that they have been lied to but next election they again will vote for the same people because that is how it always has been and how it always will be in Ireland.

As citizens of the only country in Europe that actually has the right to vote directly on forming a legal entity called the European Union with all it’s undemocratic, unelected power bases and foreign control over national laws we should actually take this more serious. But instead our masters tell us that if we don’t vote yes, Europe will break down and only stop short of saying that Ireland might get kicked out of the EU. 

This whole campaign on both sites is fear mongering, where is the open discussion about the details, both sides play politics and business as usual with one of the most important treaties that will shape the future of Europe for centuries to come.


----------



## Bluebells (28 Sep 2009)

csirl said:


> I'm going to vote No in all future EU referenda until the EU insists on getting rid of unelected heads of State among its membership. In this day and age, there is no place for unelected feudal monarchs. EU should be promoting democracy, not pandering to the unelected.



Can we be sure there will ever be another Referendum on matters european in this country, if the current one accepts Lisbon?


----------



## csirl (28 Sep 2009)

I also think that our politicians showed total contempt for the democratic will of our citizens. After the last referendum, they should have gone to Brussels saying that the Irish people have serious reservations about some aspects of the treaty and that this should be used as an opportunity to reopen the debate on the future of the EU. They should have also refused to hold a second referendum until every other country in the EU had held a referendum, saying that one of the concerns of the Irish people is that their fellow EU citizens have been denied a vote. Instead of our politicians being apologetic and acting as if we did something wrong, we could have seriously enhanced the reputation of Ireland across the EU by advocating a greater say for the taxpayers of Europe. This would have generated a lot of good will towards us from the European populace.

There is one thing that I am very concerned about and could cost us billions in foreign direct investment. If we vote yes, then we are sending a message to the world that Irish politicians are more concerned about pleasing Brussels bureaucrats than looking after their own people. That even if we vote a particular way in a Constitutional referendum, that we will change or minds in order to please Brussels.

The big elephant in the room here is our corporation tax, which is the reason we get investment in Ireland. If you're the head of a multinational and you're thinking of locating in Ireland to avail of the corporation tax, you'll be looking at Fridays results very closely. A Yes vote will tell you that there is no point in setting up in Ireland, because if Brussels orders corporation tax harmonisation, then Ireland will eventually give in.


----------



## Latrade (28 Sep 2009)

csirl said:


> I'm going to vote No in all future EU referenda until the EU insists on getting rid of unelected heads of State among its membership. In this day and age, there is no place for unelected feudal monarchs. EU should be promoting democracy, not pandering to the unelected.


 
Again some examples to back this up. There are kingdoms within the EU, but it is their elected parliaments and MEPs who represent them at EU level. The Monarchies have no involvement whatsoever. They cannot be members if they don't meet the Copenhagen criteriea where they must have free and secret elections.


----------



## csirl (28 Sep 2009)

Latrade said:


> Again some examples to back this up. There are kingdoms within the EU, but it is their elected parliaments and MEPs who represent them at EU level. The Monarchies have no involvement whatsoever. They cannot be members if they don't meet the Copenhagen criteriea where they must have free and secret elections.


 
There's a great example across the Irish sea. The Queen of England is not elected, yet she is a Head of State. No Law in the UK can come into effect until the Queen signs it. While the current Queen is generally compliant, she can refuse to sign things. She also obtained her job through birthright. No ordinary UK citizen (or should I say subject) is allowed to become King/Queen on merit or by election. The UK also has an unelected chamber in is Parliament call the House of Lords. The HOL is also the equivalent of our Supreme Court. So unelected Lords, some there by birth, are allowed to act as the final Judge and jury legal cases in the UK.

There are also a lot of other things that hang off a country having a monarch - the subjects have lesser rights in some areas e.g. no absolute right to sue the State, no absolute ownership of property (even "freehold" in the UK is subject to the Monarch). Also, the Queen is the commander of the armed forces in the UK. They are there to defend her interests which are not always the same as those of the British people. We may be living in peaceful times with a UK monarch who is compliant and doesnt rock the boat. As we can see from history, it isnt always that way.

When has the UK had "free and secret" elections for its Head of State?


----------



## Latrade (28 Sep 2009)

Bluebells said:


> Can we be sure there will ever be another Referendum on matters european in this country, if the current one accepts Lisbon?


 
Simply put: Yes. If there is another Treaty, there will have to be another referendum. The current proposed Treaty is not self-correcting. If it needs changing, we will need to vote again.



csirl said:


> There is one thing that I am very concerned about and could cost us billions in foreign direct investment. If we vote yes, then we are sending a message to the world that Irish politicians are more concerned about pleasing Brussels bureaucrats than looking after their own people. That even if we vote a particular way in a Constitutional referendum, that we will change or minds in order to please Brussels.
> 
> The big elephant in the room here is our corporation tax, which is the reason we get investment in Ireland. If you're the head of a multinational and you're thinking of locating in Ireland to avail of the corporation tax, you'll be looking at Fridays results very closely. A Yes vote will tell you that there is no point in setting up in Ireland, because if Brussels orders corporation tax harmonisation, then Ireland will eventually give in.




How is it an elephant in the room when it is clearly addressed in the Treaty? We get to set our own tax. If, and it’s a big if, there is a move to tax harmonisation, member states can opt out. That’s it. There is no elephant.

Besides which there really isn’t any overall will for harmonisation, only, as pointed out elsewhere, but high tax states that object to low tax states attracting employment. Hardly universal or anywhere near the majority required.

Second, you ignore why people invest here, its not just our tax rate, lets face it, what they get back there balanced against other high costs. We have a lot of positives attached to us, yes the tax, but also knowledge base, language, and…well it’s better here than in Poland, so it’s attractive for their top executives. But we have to remember that we are a gateway to Europe and nothing else. We are not attractive as customers as theirs only 4 million of us. The 500 million in the EU is a big market, our ties to that market and influence within Europe is a big deal to these companies. If we isolate ourselves from Europe, that’s where the intangible positives like culture and knowledge base may not be so attractive.

Again, we lose votes, but not influence.


----------



## csirl (28 Sep 2009)

> How is it an elephant in the room when it is clearly addressed in the Treaty? We get to set our own tax.


 
You forgot to add "for now" to the end of the sentence. If the EU turns around next month and says lets have a treaty to harmonise corporation tax, what do you think will happen? If we vote No, what do you think will happen?



> But we have to remember that we are a gateway to Europe and nothing else.


 
Voting No does not take away any rights we currently have - this is one of the mistruths of the Yes campaign.


----------



## Latrade (28 Sep 2009)

csirl said:


> There's a great example across the Irish sea. The Queen of England is not elected, yet she is a Head of State. No Law in the UK can come into effect until the Queen signs it. While the current Queen is generally compliant, she can refuse to sign things. She also obtained her job through birthright. No ordinary UK citizen (or should I say subject) is allowed to become King/Queen on merit or by election. The UK also has an unelected chamber in is Parliament call the House of Lords. The HOL is also the equivalent of our Supreme Court. So unelected Lords, some there by birth, are allowed to act as the final Judge and jury legal cases in the UK.





csirl said:


> There are also a lot of other things that hang off a country having a monarch - the subjects have lesser rights in some areas e.g. no absolute right to sue the State, no absolute ownership of property (even "freehold" in the UK is subject to the Monarch). Also, the Queen is the commander of the armed forces in the UK. They are there to defend her interests which are not always the same as those of the British people. We may be living in peaceful times with a UK monarch who is compliant and doesnt rock the boat. As we can see from history, it isnt always that way.




Have you missed the last 100 or so years or something? The Monarchies have no say in the running of the State. Only Acts of Parliament require Royal Assent, regulations are passed by Parliament. Also, the Monarch must act on the advice of the Parliament, who will have voted in favour. However, yes the Queen of England can withhold consent, she’s only done it once and that was where the government tried to remove the need for her consent to approve military action, in this case Iraq. Sounds like she actually acted quite reasonably in that case. In addition, withholding of consent must be on the basis of “national disaster” or some such extreme consequence.


There’s no arguments about how monarchies come into existence. But that’s beside the point, which monarch sits within Europe? Each and every state has a democratically elected parliament. Really that’s the argument. Your objection to Europe is that a handful of them have ineffective institutions known as monarchies, despite everyone one of them having fair, free press, elections and rights? Wow, that’s clutching at straws.

The HOL legal side is made of up experienced judges, not the peerage. The HOL parliamentary side is made up of peers and those who bought…I mean were selected. Again: who of these is represented at Europe? 

You can sue the State as Crown Immunity was removed sometime ago. 

And you seriously overestimate the effects of subsequent parliaments…(since Cromwell) to dilute the power and authority of the Monarch. 

The Parliament voted for by the people are the power.


----------



## Latrade (28 Sep 2009)

csirl said:


> You forgot to add "for now" to the end of the sentence. If the EU turns around next month and says lets have a treaty to harmonise corporation tax, what do you think will happen? If we vote No, what do you think will happen?
> 
> Voting No does not take away any rights we currently have - this is one of the mistruths of the Yes campaign.


 
I didn't forget because there isn't any "for now". Member States retain exclusive competence on matters relating to direct taxation. End of the argument. 

The Yes side hasn't said it will. The Yes side has said that in terms of what happens after this with Europe will be a challenge and unfortunately we may be left to one side in this change. Our links with Europe are a major selling point for us, another No vote sends out a message of uncertainty for our role within Europe and Europe in general. At this time, it is not good to have any uncertainty.

We shouldn't be blackmailed by what ifs etc, but then we shouldn't be too confident in the status quo (do we really want it to remain as it is now?). But we have to face some of the realities over what our actual objections are, do they have any actual basis in reality, and whether it is worth creating a whole long spell of uncertainty over a few unfounded misgivings.


----------



## csirl (28 Sep 2009)

> The Monarchies have no say in the running of the State.


 
The Monarchy IS the State.


----------



## starlite68 (28 Sep 2009)

superstates like germany and france will have a huge increcse in their voting power!..while irelands will be halfed....its a no brainer


----------



## Latrade (29 Sep 2009)

csirl said:


> The Monarchy IS the State.


 
So the people of these feudal systems have free elections and elect parliaments and Prime Ministers who make all the decisions. An occasional peice of legislation has to go through for Royal Consent (like, say the ban on blood sports). The feudal monarchs then call for everyone to have their heads cut off and dissenters imprisoned? Or they agree to the consent of Parliament. 

You are aware of just how much power was stripped from the Monarchy aren't you? 

Here's the issue, the people of those states have to power to abolish the Monarchy if they wish. That's why they're free people, that's why the meet the conditions of the Copenhagen conditions, that's why they're in Europe and the Monarchy in those states has absolutely nothing to do with any decision in Europe. 

So you're objection is really against a handful of countries that retain a monarchy? Is Republicanism that sour and bitter now?




starlite68 said:


> superstates like germany and france will have a huge increcse in their voting power!..while irelands will be halfed....its a no brainer


 
Well that’s me convinced…not on my watch they don’t!


----------



## Complainer (29 Sep 2009)

Ancutza said:


> Vote 'Yes' to Lisbon and you'll get NAMA.


True, but Vote 'No' to Lisbon, and you'll still get NAMA, possibly with someone other than Cowan at the helm.


----------



## csirl (29 Sep 2009)

> So you're objection is really against a handful of countries that retain a monarchy?


 
I believe in equality. When you have monarchs and subjects, you have two classes of people which is wrong. 



> Here's the issue, the people of those states have to power to abolish the Monarchy if they wish.


 
I dont recall any occasion where the people of these states were allowed to decide on whether or not they have a monarch. Can you enlighten us all?

Without getting into a long and complex legal argument, there are a lot of disadvantages and restrictions in rights that go along with having a monarch Some of your comments on issues e.g. Crown Immunity are not strictly accurate - you'd be surprised at how often these things raise their ugly heads - one example in the news at the moment is the compensation to injured soldiers from Iraq. Because UK is a monarchy, these people have no absolute right to sue for the FULL cost and compensation relating to their injuries - all they can do is petition a hearing for a paltry among of money that has been put aside at the descretion of the monarch. Contrast that with what happens in Ireland. As we've seen with some of our soldiers - they can go to court and get full compensation for any injuries.


----------



## Latrade (29 Sep 2009)

csirl said:


> I believe in equality. When you have monarchs and subjects, you have two classes of people which is wrong.
> 
> I dont recall any occasion where the people of these states were allowed to decide on whether or not they have a monarch. Can you enlighten us all?
> 
> Without getting into a long and complex legal argument, there are a lot of disadvantages and restrictions in rights that go along with having a monarch Some of your comments on issues e.g. Crown Immunity are not strictly accurate - you'd be surprised at how often these things raise their ugly heads - one example in the news at the moment is the compensation to injured soldiers from Iraq. Because UK is a monarchy, these people have no absolute right to sue for the FULL cost and compensation relating to their injuries - all they can do is petition a hearing for a paltry among of money that has been put aside at the descretion of the monarch. Contrast that with what happens in Ireland. As we've seen with some of our soldiers - they can go to court and get full compensation for any injuries.


 
What further divides of people do you have than a republic state? The aristocracy and the Monarchy do not have special consideration and are an impotent section by and large. The Monarchy of old just doesn't exist anymore. 

Just because there hasn't been a choice, doesn't mean there can't be. Britain, as any other state, has the right to declare itself a Republic if it choses to. Just because it hasn't been exercised, doesn't mean it can't be.

You're confusing agreements for injuries sustained during a conflict with Crown Immunity. It's not the same. There have been several cases against the crown, both civil and criminal resulting from non-combat activities, which is more akin to the Army Deafness cases (again claims against the Army here are for non-combat, similar rules exist in all armies for injuries sustained during combat).

There was no right to sue for injuries sustained during combat as you agree when you sign up to take on those risks. However, compensation has always been paid for injury and fatality by MOD. This is a matter of whether the pre-existing arrangements are adequate compensation, not because the individuals cannot sue the crown.

Again, I fail to see what on earth this has to do with Lisbon aside from some old republicanism blinkering one's view.


----------



## starlite68 (29 Sep 2009)

Complainer said:


> True, but Vote 'No' to Lisbon, and you'll still get NAMA, possibly with someone other than Cowan at the helm.


 someone other than cowen at the helm......sounds good to me!


----------



## Complainer (29 Sep 2009)

starlite68 said:


> someone other than cowen at the helm......sounds good to me!


It sounds good to me too, but it doesn't sound like a good reason to Vote No to me.


----------



## Ancutza (30 Sep 2009)

NAMA is a good reason to vote 'no' to Lisbon.  Vote 'Yes' and you'll definitely get NAMA.  Vote 'no' and you may or may not get it.  Likelihood is that a 'no' to Lisbon would bring a general election and that would throw NAMA open to debate.  At the moment Cowan and his buddies are steam-rollering it thro' with no regard to how the electorate feel about it. But then hey! The electorate are (for the most part) showing themselves to be a bunch of scared, paranoid lilly-livered swabs as they gulp down the fear being pressed upon them by a failed administration.  

Lisbon (or will it be NAMA?) will be the final insult inflicted upon the irish people by Cowan and his mates.

Three of my great-uncles were killed in the Battle of the Somme (2 of them on the same day) fighting for the British in the misguided belief that they would get their great reward of independence when the war was won. They truly laid down their lives for their country as did the leaders of the 1916 rising.

I'm in no way a republican and Sinn Fein revolt me but I'm ashamed of our craven attitude to the EU.  We've grown fat and full on the back of the Celtic Tiger.  Now there is an economic bump in the road which might see the Mercedes repossessed and we want to throw away our hard-won sovereignty?  Think about it.  It's simply shameful.


----------



## starlite68 (30 Sep 2009)

very good post Ancutza....says it all, a yes vote would be total madness!


----------



## Ceist Beag (30 Sep 2009)

Ancutza said:


> NAMA is a good reason to vote 'no' to Lisbon.



I'm sure the rest of the EU will be sympathetic to our selfish reasons for denying them a treaty they are all in favour of and I'm sure it won't affect how we are viewed in future talks with our EU partners!


----------



## Latrade (30 Sep 2009)

Ancutza said:


> NAMA is a good reason to vote 'no' to Lisbon. Vote 'Yes' and you'll definitely get NAMA. Vote 'no' and you may or may not get it. Likelihood is that a 'no' to Lisbon would bring a general election and that would throw NAMA open to debate. At the moment Cowan and his buddies are steam-rollering it thro' with no regard to how the electorate feel about it. But then hey! The electorate are (for the most part) showing themselves to be a bunch of scared, paranoid lilly-livered swabs as they gulp down the fear being pressed upon them by a failed administration.
> 
> Lisbon (or will it be NAMA?) will be the final insult inflicted upon the irish people by Cowan and his mates.
> 
> ...


 
What if the electorate is wrong in its view of NAMA though? What if all the misgivings are largely based on misinformation and misunderstandings? What if domestic issues are completely separate to the issues involved in this Treaty?

NAMA has and will go through the full parliamentary process, that's what they government has to do. Your opportunity to feedback on this is as with all legislation, through your TD. Your perceptions of how it is being handled have no reflection on the Lisbon Treaty.

There were different reasons for why many Irish signed up in the First World War, for some it was they felt a sense of duty in the face of what might happen, for some it was the belief that this would help Ireland and for some it was regular pay. Courageous and important: yes, but completely irrelevant to this debate. 

We do not concede any more sovereignty to Europe than we have already under previous Treaties. If you didn't like it then for other treaties, did you vote no? Have you changed your mind on this conceding of some decisions on a free market and movement of labour to Europe because we’ve got all the milk out of the cow we can and now someone else wants a bit?

Why is it that it was fine in the past when we did give Europe decisions on trade and employment to look to Europe for the millions we got in order to get out of the mire, yet now other countries who need it most must be punished either because we’re not happy with our own government (even though we elected them, even though that we were fully aware that this meant they get a full term in office, even though we have the chance to elect another government when the democratic process runs again) or we have misguided notions of our own sovereignty (even though this hasn’t bothered us in the last 30 odd years).

Spare me the chest beating “WE ARE IRELAND” hysterics. Spare me the hyperbole about NAMA. This is about whether Europe should or should change its process and administration to be more effective, efficient and representative.


----------



## Mpsox (30 Sep 2009)

Ancutza said:


> NAMA is a good reason to vote 'no' to Lisbon. Vote 'Yes' and you'll definitely get NAMA. Vote 'no' and you may or may not get it. Likelihood is that a 'no' to Lisbon would bring a general election and that would throw NAMA open to debate. At the moment Cowan and his buddies are steam-rollering it thro' with no regard to how the electorate feel about it. But then hey! The electorate are (for the most part) showing themselves to be a bunch of scared, paranoid lilly-livered swabs as they gulp down the fear being pressed upon them by a failed administration.
> 
> Lisbon (or will it be NAMA?) will be the final insult inflicted upon the irish people by Cowan and his mates.


 
NAMA is not a reason to vote yes or no. If NAMA does not go ahead, the issue in relation to the banks will still need to be resolved to put the country back on it's feet. Why the banks got into this mess is irrelevant at this stage, it's happened and it needs to be dealt with. 

No one really wants NAMA but don't think that if it doesn't go ahead that solving the banks issues will be cheap, whatever the solution is, it will cost 10s of billions


----------



## Caveat (30 Sep 2009)

Great post Latrade.


----------



## Birroc (30 Sep 2009)

caveat said:


> great post latrade.


 
+1


----------



## secman (30 Sep 2009)

I am sick of the Yes brigade treating this upcoming referendum as being a vote on Europe, its not, should we vote No we are still in Europe. Should we vote No, the Treaty cannot go ahead, and if the Conservative party win the UK general Election early next year they have stated that they will hold a referendum on this Treaty, it does not take a genius to predict that outcome. It clearly would be defeated. It would also be defeated in France. Netherlands if their citizens were afforded a vote on it. 

We are simply asking them to go back to the drawing board, this treaty was drawn up under utterly completely circumstances that prevail today. It makes me laugh, as we stand today there are 4 EU members that have not even subscribed to the euro as a currency ! Yet we are being treated very badly because we have the audacity to question the Treaty. Giving such power to People who in the past were worried how straight a banana should be  !!

Wheeling out Michael O'Leary was hilarious, that man does not give a sht about consumers, or workers. He was obviously not even up to speed on the Treaty, licking This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language for his own agenda, he surprised me as to how low he would stoop.

Secman


----------



## Purple (30 Sep 2009)

Latrade said:


> Spare me the chest beating “WE ARE IRELAND” hysterics. Spare me the hyperbole about NAMA. This is about whether Europe should or should change its process and administration to be more effective, efficient and representative.



Oh no, we should live in insular frugal comfort, just like Dev wanted (yes, the same Dev whose insular policies saw Ireland get poorer in real terms for the first 30 years of independence). We need comely maidens dancing at the crossroads and all that. Who needs progress and internationalisation; we are Ireland! 

BTW, the other option to NAMA (with the ECB calling the shots) is the IMF with international bond holders calling the shots. We’d really be a banana republic then!


----------



## Mpsox (30 Sep 2009)

secman said:


> I am sick of the Yes brigade treating this upcoming referendum as being a vote on Europe, its not, should we vote No we are still in Europe. Should we vote No, the Treaty cannot go ahead, and if the Conservative party win the UK general Election early next year they have stated that they will hold a referendum on this Treaty, it does not take a genius to predict that outcome. It clearly would be defeated. It would also be defeated in France. Netherlands if their citizens were afforded a vote on it.
> 
> We are simply asking them to go back to the drawing board, this treaty was drawn up under utterly completely circumstances that prevail today. It makes me laugh, as we stand today there are 4 EU members that have not even subscribed to the euro as a currency ! Yet we are being treated very badly because we have the audacity to question the Treaty. Giving such power to People who in the past were worried how straight a banana should be !!
> 
> ...


 
A year is a long time in politics, would you have predicted that 12 months ago FF ratings would have dropped to an all time low? You can never say for definite that a treaty would be accepted or rejected in a referendum in another country, who knows what would happen?. Anyway, if you follow the logic of that arguement, we should all be voting yes on Friday because it doesn't matter 

The reality is that Europe has been good for Ireland and the historical benifits far outweigh the costs to date. We wouldn't be expelled from the EU if we voted no, but it would be naive to assume that the other countries would simply forget it and move on as if nothing had happened. I genuinely believe it would be remembered that we had rejected the treaty and that at some stage, down the line, a price would have to be paid.

As for Michael O'Leary, at least he is not a reformed terrorist, we know how he makes his money and how he funded his campaign, he hasn't published incorrect versions of the treaty on his website, he doesn't say no to everything a la Patricia McKenna, I don't recall seeing ads or posters from him that are factually incorrect  and he's not Jim Corr!!!!


----------



## Sunny (30 Sep 2009)

I don't often agree with Michael O'Leary but he is right when he says the 'No' campaign is been led by losers and nutters!

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-...inational-interference-in-lisbon-1900516.html

Lets just ban multinationals. What did they ever do for this Country?

By the way I am not having a go at those people who are voting 'No' for some genuine reason. People are perfectly entitled to be anti-treaty or anti-EU. Just a shame that the campaign was hijacked by the left wing looney tune brigade.


----------



## Latrade (30 Sep 2009)

secman said:


> I am sick of the Yes brigade treating this upcoming referendum as being a vote on Europe, its not, should we vote No we are still in Europe. Should we vote No, the Treaty cannot go ahead, and if the Conservative party win the UK general Election early next year they have stated that they will hold a referendum on this Treaty, it does not take a genius to predict that outcome. It clearly would be defeated. It would also be defeated in France. Netherlands if their citizens were afforded a vote on it.
> 
> 
> Secman


 
What David Cameron says and will do are two separate things. Unfortunately for him, The UK Parliament (which includes the Tories)voted to ratify the treaty. What he could have done is used the parliamentary process to influence a No vote, but that pesky thing of democracy keeps popping up and the majority of his honourable and learned colleagues voted to ratify. The UK has now ratified it. Unless Gordon Brown had his fingers crossed behind his back at the time, the only way the UK can actually do anything is to remove itself from Europe as a whole...which isn't that easy as it is....though ironically is formalised under Lisbon. So the conservatives would have to use one of the new efficiencies of Lisbon in order to opt out of it.


----------



## Complainer (30 Sep 2009)

Ancutza said:


> Likelihood is that a 'no' to Lisbon would bring a general election


How did you work that out? Who do you reckon is going to bring down the Govt?

The most likely outcome of a no vote is that the FF chancers will take the opportunity to dump Cowan and put Martin or Ahern or maybe even Lenihan in place. They will then claim distance from the bad oul days, and blame everything on Bertie and Cowan.


----------



## csirl (30 Sep 2009)

One thing that worries me.

The media keep on saying that Ganley's campaign is funded by loads of foreign business people, a lot who work in the financial sector.

Since foreign investment and the financial sector are big in Ireland, does the notion that foreign investors are funding the No campaign not scare everyone? Certainly indicates that foreign investment and jobs will be less likely to locate in Ireland in the event of a Yes vote.

Yes campaign cant have it both ways - saying that Yes will create jobs, but critical of the fact that big business is funding the No campaign.


----------



## Latrade (1 Oct 2009)

csirl said:


> One thing that worries me.
> 
> The media keep on saying that Ganley's campaign is funded by loads of foreign business people, a lot who work in the financial sector.
> 
> ...


 
It's not really hypocritical at all. We have statements from American chambers saying it will affect their future investment in Ireland. Despite all the stuff that has gone on and despite all the costs associated with the state, the vast majority are still here. But they're concerned about a No vote. It shows that a No vote will have repercussions. The uncertainty it will cause will mean we lose a lot.

On Ganley: first point is that not a cent of those investments actually makes its way into Ireland. The second point is who (based on what can be gathered from the scant information) those investors are. He has contracts with the American military and they lose out with a Yes. The weapons industry as a whole will lose out also because they won't be able to charge Ireland double for a new Helicopter (for Mary to get to the races). Plus the majority of Europe's quite natural inclination towards peacekeeping rather than invasion may also have an impact.

Now if Ganley's investors are humble bankers and corner shop owners, then fine, I'll take it all back. But there’s enough about to strongly suspect that "Hedge fund owners" is non-libellous speak for a more nefarious team of investors who don’t have Ireland’s best intentions at heart.


----------



## csirl (1 Oct 2009)

> On Ganley: first point is that not a cent of those investments actually makes its way into Ireland. The second point is who (based on what can be gathered from the scant information) those investors are. He has contracts with the American military and they lose out with a Yes. The weapons industry as a whole will lose out also because they won't be able to charge Ireland double for a new Helicopter (for Mary to get to the races).


 
There are now quite a few companies supplying the weapons industry in Ireland and it is expected to be a growth industry in the next few years. Ireland produces a lot fo the technology components which go into smart weapons. A lot of the companies who produce these components would not be household names, so they are much under the radar from a public knowledge point of view. There are thousands of people employed directly in this industry and potentially tens of thousands in the future. Losing this business will have a big effect on our finances.


----------



## Ceist Beag (1 Oct 2009)

Thousands of people csirl? Can you name some of these companies?


----------



## csirl (1 Oct 2009)

I'm not going to start naming companies on a open forum and be responsible for crackpots picketing them.

Friend of mine works for one which currently employs 800 people. I've another friend who has worked for one in the past - building components for smart missiles.


----------



## michaelm (1 Oct 2009)

In my view Ganley is a patriot.  It should be clear to those who care to see that it is the Yes campaign that is disingenuous and that is littered with proponents with personal vested interests.  Tomorrow's vote is momentous.  It will determine whether or not the EU political classes and plutocracy have managed to usurp self-determination from the peoples of Europe.


----------



## Latrade (1 Oct 2009)

csirl said:


> There are now quite a few companies supplying the weapons industry in Ireland and it is expected to be a growth industry in the next few years. Ireland produces a lot fo the technology components which go into smart weapons. A lot of the companies who produce these components would not be household names, so they are much under the radar from a public knowledge point of view. There are thousands of people employed directly in this industry and potentially tens of thousands in the future. Losing this business will have a big effect on our finances.


 
Couldn't agree more, but it isn't these companies that are funding Ganley. These are companies that will profit from the EDA due to common funding for R&D and the nature of the purchasing policy for equipment. 

Again though, these are not the same companies funding Libertas. Knowing some of them as you do and also respecting their privacy, many are engaged in supporting the Yes campaign.


----------



## michaelm (1 Oct 2009)

Latrade, from reading your last few posts is it fair to say that you believe that, amongst other vested interests, the EU armament industry are funding/promoting the Yes campaign and that for all you know it is concerned Irish citizens who are funding the No campaign?  Because that's how it reads.


----------



## Latrade (1 Oct 2009)

michaelm said:


> Latrade, from reading your last few posts is it fair to say that you believe that, amongst other vested interests, the EU armament industry are funding/promoting the Yes campaign and that for all you know it is concerned Irish citizens who are funding the No campaign? Because that's how it reads.


 
No its not fair to say that, not even remotely.

I stated there have been multi-national employers that have stated that a No vote would affect their future decisions regarding investment in Ireland. However, to my knowlegde they haven't engaged in any funding or physical campagining, largely because they see it as Ireland's decision and beyond a statement (a pretty strong not too subtle one it has to be admitted) they feel it is inappropriate to directly fund or participate.

This is in contrast to the Libertas campaign that has funding from outside of Ireland, but then as you say Ganley is a patriot, just one who has to get his funding from unknown sources from outside the state.

The issue of the arms industry is that there are native companies that provide technology to various arms companies. The Treaty means Europe is less dependent on the American arms industry and American Arms R&D. This will benefit the Irish technology companies, it will not benefit some of the "cannot be named for legal reasons" foreign investors in the Libertas campaign.

As with all employers, these native Irish companies are free to put their money into any campaign or lobbying they wish. This is all on record and can be accessed through any freedom of information request. They are a few among many other corporate, political and independent sources who have chosen to invest in the Yes campaign.

The real question is why Grand Patriot Concerned Irish Citizen Ganely's "cannot be named for legal reasons" investors are not native, have no business involvement in Ireland, are not open about who they are and why they object to the Treaty. 

My reading, therefore, of your statement is that free, open and public funding from native business is in someway nefarious, yet non-Irish funding from "cannot be named for legal reasons" sources, who do not provide any investment or jobs in Ireland wish to fund an individual while hiding behind numerous layers of smoke and subtefuge is honest, patriotic and concerned citizens (though only one is actually a citizen).

Dunno, just seems you've got the priorities wrong. You're also against a federal Europe, but seem willing to support the involvement of the US in European affairs in order to achieve this misguided principle. You seem keen to keep European armies under the control of the US. You seem keen to ensure that european defence spending is at the whim of American and British companies, to which Britain and America would retain the "first dibs" on the best stuff and smaller states would effectively continue to look for cast offs, old stock and black market equipment.

Last and not least. Of all the great patriots this nation has known and owes its existence to are you really putting Ganley up there with them? Think about that for a bit before using such superlatives in future.


----------



## michaelm (1 Oct 2009)

You either really believe that Ganley is a US puppet (hardly) or you don't believe it and are happy to push such a suggestion to further your own argument.  I view Ganley as a patriot (a defender of the interests of the people of Ireland and a defender of democracy) but he is only a part of a much wider citizen based, and funded, No campaign.  

Fervent Yes people just can't fathom the idea that the ordinary Irish citizens on the No side freely give their time and money to support what they believe in.  There's no self dividend in this for the No people, the vested interest is all on the Yes side. Many Yes people will land handy numbers on Boards and committees . . Intel want a €1Bn EU fine reduced and Ryanair want to be allowed to buy AerLingus . . Pat Cox will be gifted the Irish Commissioner post . . IFA's Walshe, I suspect, will do a Parlon . . IBEC want to drive down wages and conditions . . the EU has become a gravy train and playground for political classes who view themselves as masters of the people . . last word to you


----------



## Mpsox (1 Oct 2009)

michaelm said:


> Fervent Yes people just can't fathom the idea that the ordinary Irish citizens on the No side freely give their time and money to support what they believe in.


 
Fervant No people just can't fathom the idea that the ordinary Irish citizens on the Yes side freely give their time and money to support what they believe in.


----------



## Latrade (1 Oct 2009)

michaelm said:


> You either really believe that Ganley is a US puppet (hardly) or you don't believe it and are happy to push such a suggestion to further your own argument. I view Ganley as a patriot (a defender of the interests of the people of Ireland and a defender of democracy) but he is only a part of a much wider citizen based, and funded, No campaign.


 
Yes I do believe that, all available evidence strongly suggest his motives are not what is in the best interests of Irish democracy. I also feel that if Ganley is so interested in the current model of Irish democracy then don't hide behind loop holes to shield his foreign backers. I also feel that if Ganley was such a patriot and defender of Ireland, he'd manage to scrape together a few Irish investors. 

And let's not forget the same Irish democracy that overwhelmingly distanced itself from Libertas in the European elections. You know that bit where Ganley is supposed to have said, "I'll accept the word of the Irish public and back off if they don't elect me or other Libertas candidates"? How'd that work out again? Damned Patriots, you just can't keep them down.

Or how about his respect for European democracy? You know the current system he says is ok, didn't work out to well for him there either. All these poor european citizens with no Referrendum had the chance to voice their opinions with a vote for Libertas. Again: how'd that work out? Again: where his respect for democracy there?

You say "hardly". That's fine and I'm more than willing to accept that my suspicions are baseless, but nobody seems to be able to give me actual evidence or a more convincing argument than: "well he just isn't, so there."



michaelm said:


> Fervent Yes people just can't fathom the idea that the ordinary Irish citizens on the No side freely give their time and money to support what they believe in. There's no self dividend in this for the No people, the vested interest is all on the Yes side.


 
Mpsox says it all. But don't come the downtrodden honest to god humble citizen root for all No campaginers. For some of the more ardent, their interests are politically and personally driven, not in the interests of everyone at large, but in the interest of their agenda.




michaelm said:


> Many Yes people will land handy numbers on Boards and committees . . Intel want a €1Bn EU fine reduced and Ryanair want to be allowed to buy AerLingus . . Pat Cox will be gifted the Irish Commissioner post . . IFA's Walshe, I suspect, will do a Parlon . . IBEC want to drive down wages and conditions . . the EU has become a gravy train and playground for political classes who view themselves as masters of the people . . last word to you


 
And the support from unions is because...? 

But again, point of clarification: It's not OK to feel Ganley has motives unrelated to Ireland, but it's ok to say everyone on the Yes side has?

And as to the last word, I'm happy to leave it the electorate tomorrow.


----------



## Complainer (1 Oct 2009)

csirl said:


> One thing that worries me.
> 
> The media keep on saying that Ganley's campaign is funded by loads of foreign business people, a lot who work in the financial sector.


To the best of my knowledge, there was one article in one newspaper showing that one donor to Libertas's UK MEP campaign was in the financial sector.

Where are all these other media reports you refer to?


----------



## Bronte (1 Oct 2009)

For the welfare of Ireland can everyone please vote yes this time.  Europe has been nothing but good for Ireland, do the right thing.


----------



## csirl (1 Oct 2009)

The Yes side campaign seems to be a smear campaign against No supporters i.e. Ganley et al. You have to ask the question as to why they are concentrating on a smear campaign rather than advocating the treaty itself? Ganley's background, whether or not he is funded by whoever etc. are of no relevance to the Constitutional decision we are making.


----------



## Sunny (1 Oct 2009)

csirl said:


> The Yes side campaign seems to be a smear campaign against No supporters i.e. Ganley et al. You have to ask the question as to why they are concentrating on a smear campaign rather than advocating the treaty itself? Ganley's background, whether or not he is funded by whoever etc. are of no relevance to the Constitutional decision we are making.


 
To be fair, you don't even have to launch a smear campaign against the majority or people out there advocating a 'No' vote. Joe Higgins, Patricia McKenna, Dana, Sinn Fein, Coir, UKIP, People Before Profit etc etc. Speaks for itself really.


----------



## Mpsox (1 Oct 2009)

csirl said:


> The Yes side campaign seems to be a smear campaign against No supporters i.e. Ganley et al. You have to ask the question as to why they are concentrating on a smear campaign rather than advocating the treaty itself? Ganley's background, whether or not he is funded by whoever etc. are of no relevance to the Constitutional decision we are making.


 
Then why isn't he open about where his funding comes from? After all, e expect the rest of our politicians to do so. If you have nothing to hide, be open about it

the same comments could be made about the No campaign, why are they concentrating on a smear campaign and misleading statements rather then explaining truthfully why we shouldn't vote yes


----------



## csirl (1 Oct 2009)

> Then why isn't he open about where his funding comes from? After all, e expect the rest of our politicians to do so. If you have nothing to hide, be open about it


 
Who cares? It's totally irrelevent to the Lisbon vote. As we've seen from the tribunals, a lot of our politicians receive donations from undisclosed sources. 



> Then why isn't he open about where his funding comes from? After all, e expect the rest of our politicians to do so. If you have nothing to hide, be open about it


 
I agree. There are a lot of crackpots on the No side. While they were on the winning side in the last vote, I think that the No side won in spite of them not because of them. People did not vote No for any of the crackpot reasons these groups put forward and most people who vote No tomorrow wont do so because of these crackpots.

But major politicial figures in elected positions should be arguing on the merits of the issue, not engaging in a slagging match.


----------



## ivuernis (2 Oct 2009)

So, many of the UK press, mainly Murdock papers, have stories in Friday's papers saying Blair will be the first EU "president" within weeks of any Irish Yes vote. Of course, with the Czech parliament dragging its heals on ratifying the treaty for a while yet nothing anyway. A last attempt by certain elements of the UK establishment to influence an Irish vote no doubt, but one which would certainly sway some people.


----------



## Complainer (2 Oct 2009)

csirl said:


> Who cares? It's totally irrelevent to the Lisbon vote. As we've seen from the tribunals, a lot of our politicians receive donations from undisclosed sources.


Wrong tense. You should be using the past tense ("recieved") not the present tense. 

Donations to politicians are tightly controlled and disclosed today.


----------

