Here's a link to a reader friendly version of the treaty, or rather, The Treaty Of The European Union.
Here's something else that may be of interest:http://eurealist.co.uk/archives/676
And another link, with some interesting reading that i don't see much of in Irish papers:http://11sixtynine.blogsome.com/2009/06/20/lisbon-treatyguarantees-useless-vote-no-in-october-2009/
I was king of undecided, despite voting No the last time.
After yesterday, I've now made up my mind and am definitely going to vote No.
Reason: It's our only slim chance of stopping NAMA.
There'll be another treaty. Especially when the eurocrats realise why people voted No.
I suppose everyone is entitled to their reasons for voting yes or no but I find this a strange reasoning I must admit! I would have thought people would have got the idea now that a vote on Lisbon is an important vote on the future shape of the EU and should not be messed with just to get some other point across - especially such a watered down point as the above! If you want to vote no, surely you should be doing so on the basis of the future direction you wish the EU to take - not for any other reason. If more people take your line of thinking then there is absolutely no chance that eurocrats (or anyone else for the reason) would understand why a couple of million people voted yes or no!
Well said. There has yet to be any real reason for voting no other than a vote against the government.
We said No, our Government should have told the EU No, and the EU should have followed their own rules and scrapped the treaty.
Well what if we vote yes this time?
How would you interpret that?
We've voted no before and then voted yes e.g. Nice & Divorce
What does that say about us?
Especially when the eurocrats realise why people voted No.
We are also too young of a nation state to so readily sign over our sovereignty to a federal europe. Much of what Lisbon is about is about the Germans achieving 'democratically' what they failed twice to do in the last century militarily. Whilst they're at it they'll bring along their new found best mates the French and we'll all, slowly but surely, find ourselves in another national socialist mess. I always was one for a good conspiracy theory.
Here's another link to some treaty information:http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87518
The Lisbon Treaty:
1. is an incomprehensible constitution, therefore by most voters it can only be signed in blind faith
(note: most of the advocates of the treaty admit that they have NOT read the text.)
2. as a constitution entails the loss of national sovereignty
3. is a constitution designed to cheat us and avoid referendums
4. is implemented via a profoundly undemocratic process
5. is a profoundly undemocratic constitution laying down the foundation of an undemocratic federal state, with the unelected Commission on the top of the decision-making hierarchy
6. for smaller EU countries like Ireland, means a radical loss of the voters' influence on the nationally elected EU-bodies
7. means the loss of permanent representation in the Commission
8. has an alternative: the EUDemocrats.
Indeed, do you even read your own posts before you submit them?There has yet to be any real reason for voting no other than a vote against the government.
I expect we will. I would interpret it as a victory for fear over democracy. We will have sleep walked the peoples of Europe into a Federal Europe with foundations of sand.Well what if we vote yes this time? How would you interpret that?
There were nine years between the two Divorce referenda. So maybe attitudes change over time. The Government spent heavily with taxpayers money promoting a Yes, which later led to the McKenna judgment. It was carried by only 9,000 votes, one per ballot box, which shows the importance of voting. Of course the government had to mess it up with a fudge that is 'no fault' divorce, which is a nonsense. IMHO divorce has done more harm than good.We've voted no before and then voted yes e.g. Nice & Divorce. What does that say about us?
No doubt, and the same would be true for Yes voters. But it is irrelevant. If Lisbon 1 was carried there would have been no research into the whys of it. No to Lisbon got a greater share of the popular vote than Obama did, imagine if the McCain camp wanted a rerun based on market research.I fully respect the reason you voted no, personally though I believe not every no vote the last time was as principled as yours
Indeed, do you even read your own posts before you submit them?
Valid reasons to vote No include . . Democratic principle (we said No already) . . the Treaty is deliberately unintelligible (as claimed by it's author) . . Ireland's voting strength is diluted while that of bigger states is hugely increased just as we surrender many more policy areas to QMV . . the Treaty creates, for the first time, an EU State of which we all will become citizens . . the attached Charter of Rights supersedes our rights as set out in the Irish Constitution and this Charter will be interpreted by the European Court of Justice . . we will be unable to reverse any unexpected or unwelcome interpretation by the ECJ via referendum, as we can currently do with Irish Supreme Court decisions . . we have ceded enough sovereignty to the EU already . . there are many more reasons to vote this Treaty down and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
Look, if there was no loss of sovereignty there would be no referendum. That is the whole point. There IS a loss of sovereignty otherwise our weasel Government wouldn't be holding a referendum. I assume you don't quite understand this point rather than you being deliberately misleading.It’s also very clear that there is no loss of national sovereignty.
Are you Micheal Martin? It's just a house-keeping/tidy-up exercise. You say more democratic, the Dept. of Foreign Affairs 'information'The bulk of the text is all about making the current system of governance and decision making more efficient and more democratic. As Europe has expanded, the old system just cannot cope. It’s like trying to play chess to the rules of hurling. The current system is entirely inefficient and undemocratic.
This is a stupid idea thought up by John Gormless. It's a cranks Charter. Indeed it's first use will be by a Swedish leftwing party who plan to have their online petition complete for next month when/if Lisbon is ratified. They want to petition the EU to force Abortion into Ireland (Article).Again, another “score” for democracy is that we, the people, me, you and everyone else can actually petition Europe to introduce or change new legislation.
Nice says 'less Commissioners than countries, as agreed by States'. Before Nice 2 our Commissioner, Davey Byrne & the Yes camp, said there would be 27 countries and 26 Commissioners, that we would only be without a Commissioner for 5 our of 130 years; there was even the suggestion that the country who's national held the Foreign Representative post would be the one to forgo a Commissioner. Lisbon envisages a Commission of 2/3 the number of countries and that we loose the right to 'propose' our Commissioner and rather can merely 'suggest' one; EU lawyers do not change wording for no reason. So what we've got is a politically expedient arrangement where Lisbon is unchanged the Commission President will ultimately decide who our Commissioner is to be, and in 2014 when the new Commission's term is up, the EU will probably be 30 countries and they will point to Lisbon when cutting the Commission to 20 and who knows on what rotating basis . . some bigger countries could even have permanent members just like with the UN security council.The Nice Treaty (the one we voted Yes to) reduces the number of commissioners. That has to happen next year unless…wait for it…unless Lisbon is ratified. If Lisbon is ratified, there is no reduction in the number of commissioners.
But there's no point denying it we do lose that power. It could be argued we had too much power for our size, though I doubt we'd see it like that.
Look, if there was no loss of sovereignty there would be no referendum. That is the whole point. There IS a loss of sovereignty otherwise our weasel Government wouldn't be holding a referendum. I assume you don't quite understand this point rather than you being deliberately misleading.
.Are you Micheal Martin? It's just a house-keeping/tidy-up exercise. You say more democratic, the Dept. of Foreign Affairs 'information'
leaflet says 'streamline voting' . . but what we're doing is to dilute our voting weight to be based on population (like a federal type model). Under Nice Germany's voting weight compared to Ireland is 4 to 1, under Lisbon it will be 20 to 1. As for 'can't cope . . inefficient', it's coped quite will for more than five years, since May 2004 when 10 countries joined the EU and studies show that it has become more efficient.
This is a stupid idea thought up by John Gormless. It's a cranks Charter. Indeed it's first use will be by a Swedish leftwing party who plan to have their online petition complete for next month when/if Lisbon is ratified. They want to petition the EU to force Abortion into Ireland (Article).
Nice says 'less Commissioners than countries, as agreed by States'. Before Nice 2 our Commissioner, Davey Byrne & the Yes camp, said there would be 27 countries and 26 Commissioners, that we would only be without a Commissioner for 5 our of 130 years; there was even the suggestion that the country who's national held the Foreign Representative post would be the one to forgo a Commissioner. Lisbon envisages a Commission of 2/3 the number of countries and that we loose the right to 'propose' our Commissioner and rather can merely 'suggest' one; EU lawyers do not change wording for no reason. So what we've got is a politically expedient arrangement where Lisbon is unchanged the Commission President will ultimately decide who our Commissioner is to be, and in 2014 when the new Commission's term is up, the EU will probably be 30 countries and they will point to Lisbon when cutting the Commission to 20 and who knows on what rotating basis . . some bigger countries could even have permanent members just like with the UN security council.
Hey Latrade. I like your last post. You seem now to accept that 'more democratic' really means less voting strength for Ireland and that the petition is in fact fluff.
Also you've move from the notion that Lisbon guarantees us a Commissioner to your real view that the one-for-all position will be dropped in a couple of years. I also agree with you when you say.
"The set up of the parliament, council, commission etc mean it’s even slower. The fact that it’s become the dumping ground for politicians who are out of favour in their member state doesn’t help. While its not necessarily broke, its very old rail stock and it needs an upgrade."
. . that very old rail stock makes up the EU gravy train. Rather than just upgrade the stock, a No to Lisbon presents the opportunity to to force a rethink on the direction of the whole project. Career politicians and EU civil servants want the current federal direction, advanced by Lisbon. I have no doubt that the peoples of Europe, if consulted, would have a preference for an EU which is about ease of travel and trade, more EEC like than the envisaged EU world power. EU and Irish leaders are not being honest about the direction and destination of their EU project.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?