How can Lisbon II be defeated.

[molloyjh]

The boards.ie that bans anyone of Eurocritical views?

There are plenty of people posting Euroskeptic and eurocritical views on boards every day. Boards just has a standard. No soapboxing, no personal abuse, no hysterical accusations without back-up etc. The point being only reasonable debate is allowed. Everything I've seen you do here suggests that 90% of your posts conflict directly with that. Hence why you were likely banned.

The only hysteria comes from some pro-Lisbon supporters who are trying to link the no vote to a global recession and an Irish property crash that was already well underway in June 2008.p

This coming from the guy who has an avatar suggesting the EU is becoming a socialist tyranny, who has compared the EU to Nazi Germany and said that the Lisbon Treaty spits on the grave of all those fallen heroes of 1916 and WW2. Come off it FT. Any pro-Lisbon supporter trying to link the recession and the housing crisis to Lisbon is talking out of their arse, but most are not. Many are saying that there may be economic drawbacks to voting No, which is a distinct possibility.

This was my first no vote in an EU referendum, having voted yes in the previous 3. I came to a rational decision based on the merits and demerits of the Treaty and a growing concern about the lack of democracy in Europe, which I feel is aggravated by Lisbon, not least because it defies the wishes of 2 other nations who voted to reject the almost identical EU Constitution. I make no apology for my position.

Just as the French make no apology for accepting Lisbon. Yet the fact that all the evidence available suggests they were in favour of it is something you continue to ignore because it doesn't suit your position.

The Parliament has never exercised its role of holding the Commission to account.

Just because you haven't heard of them doing it doesn't mean they haven't. They rejected an Italian Commissioner in 2004 due to his views on homosexuality (he reckoned it was a sin) and the role of women at home (he was VERY traditionalist in his views there). It took me all of 10 seconds to find that out. Maybe if you bothered to research your views you'd actually have a leg to stand on.

Italian EU Commissioner Rejected for Conservative Views | Europe | Deutsche Welle | 12.10.2004
http://www.cafebabel.com/eng/article...rocedures.html

Additionally they do act as the control over the legislation put forward by the Commission:

FT.com / UK - How the European parliament got serious

The EPP and PES agree to rotate the Presidency of the European Parliament

That's an interesting slant on what really happens. The President is elected by the Parliament. It just so happens that the EPP and PES are the largest blocks (as elected by us, the people) and therefore they end up having the greatest voting weight. The EPP covers 26 of the 27 member states (FG are a part of this block) and the PES covers all 27 member states (Labour are a part of this block).

have voted on the EP Joint Committee on Budgetary Control to suppress the Galvin Report into corruption in the EP expenses system. The EP has abdicated its responsibility to the taxpayers of Europe to rein in Brussels corruption.

That is a policy issue that is irrelevant to Lisbon. Take it up with your MEP. I don't know wnough about the Galvin report to comment too much and don't have the time to research it now.

The EU budget has not been signed-off on by the EU Court of Auditors for 14 years. They almost make Fianna Fáil look whiter than white.

I'd love to see a source for this as from everything I've ever read the auditors have consistantly given the Budget a clean bill of health.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Q&A: EU budget woes
Rapid - Press Releases - EUROPA

The population-weight is explicitly introduced into the voting-system for the first time. Until now, the small member states were over-represented per head of population, with Ireland for example having 7 out of 345 votes (2.1%) on the Council of Ministers. The numerical weighted-vote is being abolished in favour of a population weight, reducing the effective weighted-vote of Ireland to 0.85%. It makes the small states second-class members of the EU. To form a blocking-minority, you will need 4 states including over 35% of the EU's population. In practice, this means that 4 Big States can block everything subject to QMV (over 90% of areas is Lisbon goes through) while 11 small countries would not be able to form a blocking-minority because they would be unable to pass the 35%+ pppulation threshold. The Treaty erects Chinese walls between Big States and Small states, reducing the small states to vassals of the former. Below are the present (Nice) voting weights and beside them the new population-weights that effectively reduce Ireland to 0.85% of the voting-strength.

Lovely little section there that looks at only one half of the QMV system. It completely ignores that the new QMV system functions in 2 ways. One being the population weights, which is what you have provided here, the second being that each member state gets the same weight by virtue of being a member. This QMV method does not just look at population weights. It requires 55% of the Member States (currrently 15 of the 27 member states) AND 65% of the population.

You have been told this before yet you continue to ignore it. That is a very poor reflection on you.

They will get 6 weeks

No they won't, they'll get 8.

Lisbon Treaty Referendum

At present, national parliaments are not directly involved in EU decision making. If the Treaty enters into force then national parliaments – in Ireland’s case, the Dáil and Seanad - will have 8 weeks after the publication of an EU legislative proposal to vet that proposal and offer an opinion.

The problem is that they will still have no power to block proposed EU legislation.

We have the Parliament and the Council (our Ministers) to do that, why should we need our Dail to do it too?

The powers are purely consultative and intended to provide a veneer of democracy for an undemocratic form of govt.

As with the previous point, the Council and/or the Parliament pass all legislation so the democratic system is there.

The way the mechanism will work is as follows: If one-third of national parliaments agree that proposed EU legislation violates the principle of "subsidiarity" (that, unless EU institutions have exclusive power, action will only be taken at a European level if it were to be more effective than acting at a national level), the Commission will have to either withdraw, maintain or amend it. Similarly, if a majority of national parliaments object to the proposal, the Commission will be required to explain its reasons. But again - and this is the important point. The Commission can press on regardless.

They can press on regardless with drafting the legislation. They cannot pass it into law though. The Parliament and/or Council do that. You obviously don't understand how the EU works FT.

the vast powers we are surrendering in terms of the expansion of QMV

Vast powers? Have a look at this PDF and let me know which of these qualify:

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/Lisbo...ew_English.pdf

the Supreme Court-type powers the Charter of Fundamental Rights will give the ECJ.

What powers? We have opt outs regarding many of the things you prattle on about so I'd be curious to know.

And tell me this: if the Commission can't bring itself to listen to the no votes of 20 million Europeans who have voted on the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty, then what makes you think they will listen to a few hundred parliamentarians?

And tell me this, if you can't bring yourself to admit in the face of the evidence that the French are in favour of Lisbon why do you keep claiming they are not.

It is my contention that the simplified revision-procedure is intended to circumvent the requirement for referenda in member states such as Ireland. The Crotty Judgement of 1986 stated that referenda were only required if a Treaty changed the "scope" of the EU. If Lisbon goes through, future treaty changes can be rammed through without an Irish referendum and when it comes to the inevitable constitutional-challenge, the govt will simply argue that this is within the "scope" of changes envisaged by Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty/self-amending provisions.

You really don't understand this bit at all do you (not surprising given you have been proven not to understand corporate tax, QMV, the roles of the 3 legislative bodies in the EU and probably more!)? Any changes must stil be ratified by member states as they currently do, meaning referenda here in certain cases. The only change being the way in which those changes once ratified are implemented. This is one of the ones I went to the actual Treaty on.

There is already a petition. As with the old one, this is non-binding.

There is no formal petition already in existance. Don't know where you're getting this one. As for the fact that it is non-binding, of course it isn't. 1 million people out of the whole EU is a fraction of a percentage. To have it binding would be grossly anti-democratic and downright dangerous. Petitions don't tend to work here, but they have done in some of the continental countries. Either way surely it's better to have it than not.

A QMV vote on the European Council will be required to ratify any withdrawl agreement.

So? Do you think a country should be allowed to part of the union for as long as they are getting money from it and then run as soon as the funds dry up? I don't.

Well you can research if you want. I have posted hectares of my own research on the treaty in the past year and a half, including direct quotes from the Lisbon Treaty. In any discussion on a subject matter, primary-sources are the most credible basis for arguments and that should also be the case where this Treaty is concerned. I challenge you to post which parts of the Treaty support your arguments as I have posted those which support mine.

I've read some of your posts with quotes from the Treaty and in some you've failed completely to understand the plain English in it. Doesn't fill me with confidence.

[molloyjh]

Sorry, I had to come back to this. Something in it got me thinking yesterday and I came to a shocking conclusion on your interpretation of democracy. You are suggesting that since people vote in their representatives that all decisions that those representatives make on behalf of their electors is valid so long as they are not challenged in the courts. Well that is a shameful conclusion. Since it is obviously your conclusion then it is fair for me to infer that you are in favour of how the Irish government handled the child abuse scandals in state/church run institutions. It would also mean that you were/are in favour the indemnity handed out to the Religious institutions. I could also fairly infer that you agree that it was right that members of FF who obviously wanted to protect the Religious at nearly any cost, that is exactly what should have been done.

And how do you know that the French did not resist the Lisbon treaty? I'm sure many issues that arise in this country are not necessarily reported in France, so unless you live there, how can you say for certain that there was not opposition to it.

Further, there is no way you can say that "the people" in other countries passed the Lisbon Treaty? The politicians passed the Lisbon Treaty, not the people. That really pisses me off.

Look how much Browne is squirming over our guarantees. He in no way wants to face his people on the issue because he is fairly certain it wont be passed.

So, dont tell me that the people of the EU have passed the Lisbon Treaty, it simply is not true, and further dont tell me you sympathise with the child abusers and rapist because you believe that governments ALWAYS act in the best interests of those that elect them, because they dont. If you believe they do, then you are a child abuser sympathiser based on what has happened in this country. I dont believe you are so you really should change your belief on political representation of the people.

The simple response to this is that valid is not always right. I never passed judgement on it morally, just pointed out facts. I never said the Government always act in the best interests of the people, I just said in cases where they don't we have the power to deal with it. It is up to us whether we use that power or not.

[molloyjh]

Sounds like a 2 speed Europe!

New Slogan: Vote No to Lisbon if you DONT want a two speed Europe

That would be the ase if the new QMV was solely based on population, which I pointed out above is not the case. FT is feeding you half of the information.

But the French voted against the Constitution, by a wide margin.

Lisbon IS the Constitution (but is called a treaty).

Therefore the French surely disagree with Lisbon.

(Unless of course they had another referdum since that I haven't heard of?)

The French are not happy with Lisbon, they voted for someone who didn't propose Lisbon when he was elected, and who thereafter publicly declared he ratified Lisbon through parliament because he was certain a new referendum would yield a new no.

molloyjh you don't lie skillfully.

For all your mouthing off guys you still haven't provided one single bit of evidence to suggest the French opposed Lisbon. I have provided evidence that they supported it. Now either back up your drivel or stop making your fanciful claims. I'm sorry the evidence as it stands doesn't back up your point of view, but that doesn't make me a liar and certainly doesn't do anything but disproive your points.

[sarahj]

For all your mouthing off guys you still haven't provided one single bit of evidence to suggest the French opposed Lisbon. I have provided evidence that they supported it. Now either back up your drivel or stop making your fanciful claims. I'm sorry the evidence as it stands doesn't back up your point of view, but that doesn't make me a liar and certainly doesn't do anything but disproive your points.

Darling, their NO vote proves they didn't support the Constitution.

Lisbon IS the constitution and they haven't been allowed to vote for it again. So until there is a new vote on the issue, the results of the last one hold.

Do you need me to say it again for you petal?

[molloyjh]

Another point to FT on his Charter nonesense.....


Check out page 13, Article 51, paragraph 2. The exact quote being:

2. The Charter does not extend the field of application of Union law beyond the powers of the Union or establish any new power or task for the Union, or modify powers and tasks as defined in the Treaties.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...01:0016:EN:PDF

Seems your wrong about the impacts of the Charter on the ECJ FT.....

[molloyjh]

Darling, their NO vote proves they didn't support the Constitution.

Lisbon IS the constitution and they haven't been allowed to vote for it again. So until there is a new vote on the issue, the results of the last one hold.

Do you need me to say it again for you petal?

They are certainly extremely similar, but they are not the same. Either way as of last year the French supported Lisbon. If you have proof otherwise then please provide it, however my information is far more up to date than yours. People believed 50 years ago that smoking wasn't bad for your health. That doesn't mean they still do. See the logic there, petal? Too complex is it darling? Ah well, sure don't worry your pretty little head about it.

[mmclo]

It is CLEARLY stated in the Lisbon Treaty that it will make the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding in all the member states. A charter that would ultimately, working alongside the European Court of Justice, have the power to decide on matters such as abortion, gay marraige and euthanasia in our country. .

Really can you provide some evidence for this...the particular article in the treaty etc?

[FutureTaoiseach]

Doesn't contradict what I said molloyjh.. I stand over it all. The role of the ECJ is to interpret EU law - which the Charter will be under Lisbon.

[sarahj]

They are certainly extremely similar, but they are not the same. Either way as of last year the French supported Lisbon. If you have proof otherwise then please provide it, however my information is far more up to date than yours. People believed 50 years ago that smoking wasn't bad for your health. That doesn't mean they still do. See the logic there, petal? Too complex is it darling? Ah well, sure don't worry your pretty little head about it.

Did they? And how do we know this? I am aware that the French parliament have approved it, but I still am unsure as to how you can draw the conclusion from it that the people supported this approval.

I'm not worried about it at all...the only thing that's worrying me is your failure to accept an argument based on two valid assumptions and which makes a valid conclusion.

And your smoking distraction was nothing more than that - a distraction. The smoking issue is a belief which has been proven wrong. This is one of fact - unless a referendum is held in France on the Lisbon treaty, the only assumption we can make as to the will of the French people is that which they demonstrated on that "certainly extremely similar" document in 2005. Darling.

Surely I don't need to go through this again, do I?

[molloyjh]

Doesn't contradict what I said molloyjh.. I stand over it all. The role of the ECJ is to interpret EU law - which the Charter will be under Lisbon.

The Charter being law then means that by law it doesn't extend the powers of the EU. The ECJ is part of the EU, therefore by law it's powers are not extended. This came directly from the Charter itself. So you are contradicting the Charter, not the other way around.