LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksCan you please tell me which EU nation(s) put the EU before themselves ???Originally Posted by goosebump
Can you please tell me which EU nation(s) put the EU before themselves ???
Don't be stupid, of course we are in it for purely national reasons and so is every other country
Sovereignty is Democracy
Have you ever canvassed anyone in your life? Diagrams, democracy, working together as a union. WTF?There is plenty of positive material in the Treaty for Irish citizens - even for those who dislike the EU. Let me offer you a diagram that summarises the additional input for the citizen into the EU under Lisbon:
The dashed stuff only happens under Lisbon. You're gaining one additional direct route for opposing EU legislation (the Charter), one indirect route for opposing it (the national parliament 'red card'), and one direct route for requesting (the citizens' initiative), plus an increase in the ability of the EUP (and thus your MEP) to both propose and oppose legislation.
By the way, the reason the citizen is shown as the "man at work" sign is deliberate - you have to make an effort to make democracy work.
The message in 2008 was muddled, distorted and defensive was was still better than that sh1te.
Message for 2009:
FF: Please don't vote No, but if you do - On your own head be it.
FG: Richard Bruton, just Richard, people will tune out but they respect and trust him and so when he assures people, it may work (or at least get the absent FG vote out)
Labour: the fact that we are campaigning this time shows how important this is. But please vote yes in spite of the government.
Greens: we can't do energy and environmnet as an Island alone.
Unions: vote for your job.
Farmers: just vote yes - you know why.
IBEC: as little as possible.
Church: We approve of the safeguards, now vote as your conscience dictates.
Target voter:
Every punter in every pub (especially those that did not vote last time): you would be mad to vote No again, we can't afford it. Sure aren't the foreignors leaving anyway. I just can't trust that Ganley fella either.
Trying to persuade No voters with reasoned argument is a waste of time.
You're confusing No voters with No campaigners. I'll leave the canvassing to you - you leave the thinking to me.Trying to persuade No voters with reasoned argument is a waste of time.
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.
A line worthy of (a) Yes Minister.
'Personally, I find the notion of changing our constitution in exchange for a loan absolutely disgusting'. - Tin Foil Hat
The scary truth about that, is that was you who moved me from the "No, I don't like it" to "Yes, its not such a big deal anyway and the those at the coalface are happy enough with it" team.
(some credit to Future Taoiseach and Declan (Democratic Federal Union" Ganleytoo).
This referendum will be won on the doorsteps and if that means canvassing with Fine Gaelers - we will do it (not sure if they would though).
Don't be focusing on the details now folks: Just shovel 120,000 words of badly drafted Brussels bureaucratese into the 30,000 word Bunreacht. And then sure none of us will understand Bunreacht and won't everything be grand ?
A) Is the chap just an idiot ?
B) Is he a closet anti-Lisbon campaigner ?
C) Is he insane ?
I think it would be wisest to assume all 3 for the moment...
cYp
"Yawn , am I alive yet ?"
Keep up the arrogance because it'll guarantee a NO vote and the end of this Frankentreaty.
"The Egyptians could run to Egypt, the Syrians into Syria. The only place we could run was into the sea, and before we did that we might as well fight.” -Golda Meir
The wording of the Treaty doesn't go into Bunreacht na hEireann, and to suggest it does represents a fundamental misunderstanding of both. All that goes into Bunreacht is an explicit statement that the State MAY ratify the Lisbon Treaty.
"Elite - a small superior group; esp one that has a power out of proportion to its size." (Oxford English Dictionary)
The majority cannot therefore be the elite.
It will also be possible that the Charter can form the basis of a challenge to national law on the supposition that it violates the Charter. The Charter itself will be EU law under Lisbon. Where national law and EU law contradict one another, it has always been the case that EU law supersedes, but the difference here is that the Charter is far more wideranging in terms of personal freedoms and far vaguer than previous EU law, which is usually criticised for being too technically-worded to be understood. The Charter has the opposite problem - it is worded too much in genral terms such that it could mean almost anything, and it will be the ECJ which on the ground decides what it means via court cases. One thing we know from this country is that when legislation or a part of the Irish Constitution is vaguely-worded, that fact gives tremendous power to the judiciary to decide what it means according to their own inclinations. I, for one, am unwilling to grant similar latitude to the ECJ to dictate the rights of the people of this country which such vague terminology as is contained in the Charter. Examples of such general terms includes the Charter's assertion that 'everyone has the right to work', which I fear could lead to the ECJ forcing Ireland to legalise employment for asylum-seekers. The last time the govt allowed them to work, the numbers soared to 11,000 (in 2002). I also have serious concerns about the impact on Ireland's asylum-policy generally, including the ban on "collective expulsions", which could be twisted by the ECJ to ban all deportations where the claimant was an asylum-seeker who had children during her application which did not have separate asylum-applications. One of the facts that stood out in 2008 was that of the 3,800 asylum-applications that year, many were by the children of asylum-seekers whose applications were only made after the rejection of their parents' claims. I can forsee a situation whereby if an attempt were made to deport parents with their children in such a situation, that an inevitable ECJ challenge would be made on the basis that deportation would contravene the Charter's ban on "collective expulsions". I do not accept your theory that collective-expulsions only refer to ethnic-cleansing (which I'm obviously not in favour of). Then we go into other areas of national law such as industrial-relations, where the Charter says that there is a "right to collective bargaining", and where it says that the death penalty is forbidden except in cases of rebellion against the EU. This could lead to the ECJ reintroducing the death-penalty in Ireland. The Charter is the biggest can of worms we have been asked to sign up to since EEC/EU membership in 1972, and in the end, only the ECJ will decide what it means. Your party may be prepared for the leap in the dark and erosion of democracy that implies, but the Irish people are not.There is plenty of positive material in the Treaty for Irish citizens - even for those who dislike the EU. Let me offer you a diagram that summarises the additional input for the citizen into the EU under Lisbon:
The dashed stuff only happens under Lisbon. You're gaining one additional direct route for opposing EU legislation (the Charter), one indirect route for opposing it (the national parliament 'red card'), and one direct route for requesting (the citizens' initiative), plus an increase in the ability of the EUP (and thus your MEP) to both propose and oppose legislation.
By the way, the reason the citizen is shown as the "man at work" sign is deliberate - you have to make an effort to make democracy work.
