Private polling and focus groups indicate Lisbon 2 may be lost: Sunday Times

[libertarian-right]

Cowen "God I need a break from all this, ok ok...crack open that bottle of delight there Willie and lets start this meeting"

Willie O'Dea "Right you are...the EU are saying we must pass Lisbon, Gormley said he would rig his parties vote on supporting it"

Cowen "Grand stuff, do I have to do anything?"

Willie "Em...this time I think Michael Martin will do alot more talking and bullying of the people, hes more soft spoken, the elderly love that type of thing"

Cowen "Jaysus Willie dont breathe in my direction, the smell of moustache off ya"

Willie "Ah I'll clip the old dinger tonight so, didnt realise it would so bad"

[Earnest]

so in other words the big three LIED to get a treaty through.

if we shouldnt have believed them now on the comissioner as it was only technicaly possible to retain it why should we now on lisbon in relation to the things they say couldnt possibly happen in terms of taxation and neutrality?

on the surface, given their track record, that seems a hell of a good reason to vote no again.

Who are "the big three"? What lies did they tell about the commissioner? I've read all this thread and I can't remember any such thing being established.

[myksav]

So why would all the other 26 countries agree that Ireland should be last to lose a Commissioner? What's in it for them?




No we couldn't. That vote has already happened. We voted for the 2/3rds arrangement. That can only be superseded by the Lisbon Treaty coming into effect, which means the Council Decision of every country having a Commissioner gets triggered. That can only happen under Lisbon, and can't happen under Nice.

I'd say that you are either telling a lie, a damn lie or a debatable point. I haven't been able to find anything on that hypothetical vote you claim took place on the 2/3 provision.

Under Nice, the Commission must be less than the number of Member States, no defined number was given.
Under Lisbon, the Commission must be no more than 2/3 of the number of Member States.
That, HBAP, was what was stated very often by the Gov't, etc last year.

[molloyjh]

I'd say that you are either telling a lie, a damn lie or a debatable point. I haven't been able to find anything on that hypothetical vote you claim took place on the 2/3 provision.

Under Nice, the Commission must be less than the number of Member States, no defined number was given.
Under Lisbon, the Commission must be no more than 2/3 of the number of Member States.
That, HBAP, was what was stated very often by the Gov't, etc last year.

Under Lisbon it would be 2/3 of Member States, not no more than.

As I said earlier I would imagine this is what would be used if Lisbon is not ratified as I can't see the re-negotiating the whole thing in 2-3 weeks.

[eurosceptic]

The czechs organised a plan B that would give us a permanent seat on the commission as we will never hold the foreign policy chief spot.

[blacbloc]

KN doesn't have an anti-Lisbon agenda, however I agree that the Sunday Times has. This in itself is no bad thing as at the very least it counters the sheer weight the pro-Lisbon side have in terms of advocacy.

Frank Fitzgibbon is unapologetically against Lisbon and has stated The Times' editorial stance openly in several instances. Meanwhile, the Irish media - the Irish Times perhaps being the most hypocritical of all - are making an increasingly idiotic attempt at trying to seem 'balanced' while in fact being rabidly pro Lisbon. The media have learned nothing from the last vote: people didn't believe them anymore than they believed the political crooks who were pedalling Lisbon. The same ones who are now pedalling Lisbon again, that is. Baroness Kinnock has made it quite clear that the Lisbon Treaty is completely unaltered by the Irish 'guarantees'.

[MrFunkyBoogaloo]

And now you're trying to sell what FF sold at the time of the Nice Treaty. Except that as it turned out, what was agreed was nothing like that, and realistically wouldn't be this time either.

I'm sure Ireland can propose the 130-year rotation period if it likes. I don't see any likelihood of it being adopted, and all the other 26 nations have a veto too (something which appears to be let out of a lot of peoples' calculations).

No, i haven't forgotten their Veto.. But the new commission cannot be appointed until a decision is made regarding it's size (as per Nice requirements).

Therefore, if Ireland were to vote NO, we could still bargain for a place at the commission under the suggestion i set out.

I am not trying to sell the old message btw.. I would prefer a reduced commission as i've stated. But it is a fallacy to state that Ireland would lose it's commissioner if we voted NO. The rules of Nice still apply.

I also presented the idea that, regarding the commission, the Nice Treaty was a much better deal than Lisbon, for those who care about 'our' commissioner

[MrFunkyBoogaloo]

Under Lisbon it would be 2/3 of Member States, not no more than.

As I said earlier I would imagine this is what would be used if Lisbon is not ratified as I can't see the re-negotiating the whole thing in 2-3 weeks.

Not necessarily. Ireland could veto the 2/3 proposal if that decision has yet to be made. They may have agreed that clause regarding Lisbon, but unless Lisbon comes into force, we act under Nice and there it just says, 'less than 27'.

[Jethro]

1. Ireland will never go back to EFTA. It's too far back to go. IMO, not even the Tories would go back to EFTA.

2. Germany wouldn't not [sic] invest here because of lax labour laws. To the contrary, they are huge investors in China because of lax labour, environmental etc. laws. The question is probably more like would Irish workers vote to go back to a deregulated arrangement (EFTA) where labour, employment and health & safety laws might go to pot.

Well now McDave that's all very well and good but some of us are voting no to Lisbon (and have been since Maastricht) because we would would rather that Ireland was closer to Boston than Berlin.

The alternative is to ally with the right and push from within for Friedrich Hayek's vision of a small govt federal Europe. But the 'anglo saxon' tradition is heavily outnumbered by the Rhineland economic model. ps I am an ordinary 5th generation Irishman - no connections to the UK.

[molloyjh]

Not necessarily. Ireland could veto the 2/3 proposal if that decision has yet to be made. They may have agreed that clause regarding Lisbon, but unless Lisbon comes into force, we act under Nice and there it just says, 'less than 27'.

That has to come into effect on 01st November if Lisbon isn't ratified. Giving the Council around 3 weeks to finalise how it will be done. That's nowhere near enough time to start from scratch on negotiations, especially given that all Member States Governments have already agreed to the 2/3 proposal in the Lisbon negotitations. You are fooling yourself if you think it will be anything other than the 2/3 proposal.