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

[constitutionus]

To be honest, I can't remember them saying that we would keep a commissioner. Maybe they did. But I think we should vote on Lisbon according to its merits and not by adding up how many lies we think were told on either side.

i'd like that too.

unfortunetly all FF/FG/LAB seem to want to talk about is leaving europe, abandoning the euro and Iceland

the only genuine debate and discussion im seeing on lisbon is on here by guys like yourself and Ibis and co despite a promise of a more informed debate by the taoiseach last year.

in the end its not about the number of lies , its about who the country trusts and the big 3 are acting well dodgy by refusing to discuss the treaty at all.

i mean theres only 7 weeks left till the second referendum.

i get the strong feeling that they think its lost already and are going to try to blame being distracted by NAMA for not rolling out a credible campaign.

[eurosceptic]

Good point conny. For all the talk of a "lack of information" last year, the pro-treaty bodies are avoiding any discussion of the treaty content whatsoever.

[hiding behind a poster]

And a change of mind by the Council on its Solemn Decision would have to be unanimous. We have a veto and no-one could blame us for exercising it.

But the solemn decision was reached in response to a request from Ireland? Are you now suggesting we veto our own proposed solution?

[hiding behind a poster]

I wrote "We have a veto and no-one could blame us for exercising it." That is true in relation to going back on the commissioner guarantee.

On the other hand, the exercise of our veto on Lisbon will certainly result in a lot of blame, hostility, discrimination, bypassing etc.

Well that goes with the territory of any veto, anywhere. Imagine a golf club with 27 members and a set of club rules. And one of the rules is that all changes to those rules have to be unanimous. Anyway, someone comes up with a new set of rules, which 26 of the members agree with, because they think they're an improvement. But one member says no - vetoing the change. So the other members ask him what bits he disagrees with, and what he'd prefer instead. But he just keeps saying "look, I said No. What part of No don't you understand? You're all just out to screw me, anyway." Finally, he lists a few things that he says can't be in the rules if he's to agree to them. But its then pointed out to him that those things aren't in the new rules anyway. But he still says no.

So he's hardly likely to be the most popular member of the club by now, is he? Sure, he's still a member. He pays his sub, is eligible for teams and competitions, can eat in the bar, use the locker-room, etc. But you can't blame the other members for not putting their names down with him on the timesheet, not sitting with him for post-round pints, not volunteering to play with him in the team events, etc.

[hiding behind a poster]

Good point conny. For all the talk of a "lack of information" last year, the pro-treaty bodies are avoiding any discussion of the treaty content whatsoever.

Bit rich coming from you, given your obsession with things that AREN'T in the content of the Treaty.

[riker1969]

I think you are putting with an Iron-Golf clubs are Bourgeois institutions based on keeping out the proletariat! No voters are not typical golf club members as the game is too logical..

They believe as pointed out by a columnist (I cant recall his name) that the EU will bring in Abortion and an EU conscripted army. As he pointed out they hardly would want us to abort possible cannon fodder but he was not as direct as that!

[ibis]

To be honest, I can't remember them saying that we would keep a commissioner. Maybe they did. But I think we should vote on Lisbon according to its merits and not by adding up how many lies we think were told on either side.

In fact, some member of the government at the time said that Nice only required us to lose a Commissioner every 130 years - something derided by the No voters as technically true but politically impossible. Funnily enough, we now have No voters trying to convince us of the same thing.

[eurosceptic]

Well lets hold the government to their nice2 promises!

[TradCat]

They believe as pointed out by a columnist (I cant recall his name) that the EU will bring in Abortion and an EU conscripted army. As he pointed out they hardly would want us to abort possible cannon fodder but he was not as direct as that!

Why not? They are already aborting their own economic future and it doesn't seem to bother them. I'm not one of those worried about an EU army projecting its power across the globe. Europe will be a victim not an aggressor.

[Earnest]

But the solemn decision was reached in response to a request from Ireland? Are you now suggesting we veto our own proposed solution?

Sorry, I don't follow this. We asked for a permanent commissioner. In a Solemn Decision they said Yes. Could they go back on this, asked someone. If they tried, I said, we could veto and attempt to go back on it.

So we would be upholding our proposed solution by vetoing any change to it.