a Lisbon question before i decide

[csirl]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

The Monarchy IS the State.

 

[starlite68]

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

 

[Latrade]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Ceist Beag]

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]

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.

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]

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]

Great post Latrade.

 

[Birroc]

great post latrade.

+1

 

[secman]

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]

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!