Kate P wrote:

Nah. You're special .

Dick Roche, on the other hand, is not special.

Ah he's a bit special olympics now.

Kate P - any more news from the Tallaght meeting? Did you find your notes?

Are you going to any more?

It seems that as our own polls swings back in favour of the No vote, the Irish Nation is swinging the other way. It's particularly interesting where it says;

"The shift to the Yes side appears to due to greater support among Fine Gael members and the farming community."

Aren't the farmers supposed to not like this Treaty? What about Mandelson? What about the WTO talks? It's intriguing that they'd be more positive with that in the news.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

It seems that as our own polls swings back in favour of the No vote, the Irish Nation is swinging the other way. It's particularly interesting where it says;

"The shift to the Yes side appears to due to greater support among Fine Gael members and the farming community."

Aren't the farmers supposed to not like this Treaty? What about Mandelson? What about the WTO talks? It's intriguing that they'd be more positive with that in the news.

Not surprising really - our recent intake of new members have tended toward the No side of the debate - all the online communities with polls are tending towards No - so we are just getting back on trend.

I wouldn't sweat on it Ard. I find if the political spectrum that you find on line was reflected in the real world - Ireland would have a massive socialist left grouping and a quite a sizeable far right ring and possiblly overtly nationalists groupings on either side of the political spectrum and a tiny centrist group - that isn't going to happen anytime soon -if ever. I enjoy the debate on line - but it should be remembered that those motivated enough to discuss politics are a tiny minority of Irish society and for many on the fringe ,or with firm ideological stands are also a distinct minority ,but who are massively over-represented in the cyber world - which is normally the only outlet they have expressing their beliefs with like minded folks. Look at P.ie - The FFers there are probably the smallest grouping of any political grouping there - yet in the real world they consistently command the loyalty of 35-45% of the Irish electorate.

This thread is a wee bit scary, the first page anyway..

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=172&t=35034

I'm getting really head-wrecked over this referendum.

*Puts head back in sand*

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

This thread is a wee bit scary, the first page anyway..

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=172&t=35034

I'm getting really head-wrecked over this referendum.

*Puts head back in sand*

Nice one

(is that why we've taken to German lessons here with gusto? )

And why Audi has a house with an interesting aerial view .

Edo wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

It seems that as our own polls swings back in favour of the No vote, the Irish Nation is swinging the other way. It's particularly interesting where it says;

"The shift to the Yes side appears to due to greater support among Fine Gael members and the farming community."

Aren't the farmers supposed to not like this Treaty? What about Mandelson? What about the WTO talks? It's intriguing that they'd be more positive with that in the news.

Not surprising really - our recent intake of new members have tended toward the No side of the debate - all the online communities with polls are tending towards No - so we are just getting back on trend.

I wouldn't sweat on it Ard. I find if the political spectrum that you find on line was reflected in the real world - Ireland would have a massive socialist left grouping and a quite a sizeable far right ring and possiblly overtly nationalists groupings on either side of the political spectrum and a tiny centrist group - that isn't going to happen anytime soon -if ever. I enjoy the debate on line - but it should be remembered that those motivated enough to discuss politics are a tiny minority of Irish society and for many on the fringe ,or with firm ideological stands are also a distinct minority ,but who are massively over-represented in the cyber world - which is normally the only outlet they have expressing their beliefs with like minded folks. Look at P.ie - The FFers there are probably the smallest grouping of any political grouping there - yet in the real world they consistently command the loyalty of 35-45% of the Irish electorate.

Can't be better expressed and should never be forgotten, cyber politicos!!

Speaking to my siblings back home and despite coming from a reasonably political family, not a one of them has the least interest in or any in-depth knowledge of the detail of this Treaty. No posters up locally yet, not as of earlier this week anyway, will check again tomorrow. Only the inevitable and alluring "dog whistle" of Euroscepticism.

Auditor #9 wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

This thread is a wee bit scary, the first page anyway..

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=172&t=35034

I'm getting really head-wrecked over this referendum.

*Puts head back in sand*

Nice one

(is that why we've taken to German lessons here with gusto? )

Jawohl!!

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

And why Audi has a house with an interesting aerial view .

There is a lot of support for the Nazi party in Germany still you know - people have voted a couple of them in in one region. Would you have any deep down worries about that deep dark side of the german character?

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

This thread is a wee bit scary, the first page anyway..

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=172&t=35034

I'm getting really head-wrecked over this referendum.

*Puts head back in sand*

You should follow it all the way through. God bless invryn - he's more interested in facts than politics:

ivnryn wrote:

Right, except for my post after being asked about Banzalf, all the other posts measure the difference between the 2 treaties (using Germany as the reference point).

The conclusions are

Relative to Germany:
We lose good policies (-6%)
We gain blocking power (+6%)
We are less decisive (-36%)
We have a lower Banzalf index (-25%).

He seems to be producing a lot of damning statistics about the power Germany is going to have once this Treaty is over.

I've got to page 2 half way and I like this

MacCoise wrote:

seabhcan wrote:

Considering that Germany has 20 times more people, maybe it is fair, no?

Don't the No side also call for a "more democratic EU". Well, this is what a more democratic EU looks like. More people = more power.

Well then lets have a world government and let China and india rule

Auditor #9 wrote:

He seems to be producing a lot of damning statistics about the power Germany is going to have once this Treaty is over.

I've got to page 2 half way and I like this

MacCoise wrote:

seabhcan wrote:

Considering that Germany has 20 times more people, maybe it is fair, no?

Don't the No side also call for a "more democratic EU". Well, this is what a more democratic EU looks like. More people = more power.

Well then lets have a world government and let China and india rule

Why do you like that, though?

He's bringing the argument to its logical extreme with this vivid image of power in proportion to population.. while at the same time evoking the the fact that we make value judgements about cultures, in this case China and India - there is no way in hell that they would get a third of world government power even though they have that fraction of the world's population and democracy is (should be) about people, not about economic power.

He's showing up the democratic program to be a bit hypocritical I think.

Isn't more power to Germany this way analagous to one county in Ireland being able to make more decisions on national issues because of population-based importance?

I suppose the MEPs are elected by region which can be supra(?) national - i.e. an area of Ireland might have more of a call for an MEP (or not...)

Jaysus it's complicated but what I mean to say/ask is is the representation in the Parliament faithful to the 'constituencies' of the EU? Literally down to local constituencies or at least regions like Munster, Dublin etc. - why or how is it national representation that is featured in the debate? Surely Germany itself breaks down to several very different regional MEPs who may have very different concerns when using their votes... i.e an East German MEP might vote with Eastern European or Southern Spanish/Italian MEPs and not their fellow national MEPs based on economics of their respective regions..

Another stupid question is which part of our Constitution gets changed?

Auditor #9 wrote:

Another stupid question is which part of our Constitution gets changed?

Your question made me want to read the Bill, so I found it here...
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2008/1408/b1408d.pdf

Article 29 section 4 subsections 9 and 11 get erased, the previous subsection 10 becomes number 9 and new ones get inserted numbering 10 to 15.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Isn't more power to Germany this way analagous to one county in Ireland being able to make more decisions on national issues because of population-based importance?

I suppose the MEPs are elected by region which can be supra(?) national - i.e. an area of Ireland might have more of a call for an MEP (or not...)

Jaysus it's complicated but what I mean to say/ask is is the representation in the Parliament faithful to the 'constituencies' of the EU? Literally down to local constituencies or at least regions like Munster, Dublin etc. - why or how is it national representation that is featured in the debate? Surely Germany itself breaks down to several very different regional MEPs who may have very different concerns when using their votes... i.e an East German MEP might vote with Eastern European or Southern Spanish/Italian MEPs and not their fellow national MEPs based on economics of their respective regions..

Another stupid question is which part of our Constitution gets changed?

MEP's don't vote by country except very occasionally. They vote with their European Parliamentary party, which are based on ideological stance rather than geography. Thus, for example, Sinn Fein votes with the rest of the eurosceptics, because they're all in one (eurosceptic) party.

ibis wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Isn't more power to Germany this way analagous to one county in Ireland being able to make more decisions on national issues because of population-based importance?

I suppose the MEPs are elected by region which can be supra(?) national - i.e. an area of Ireland might have more of a call for an MEP (or not...)

Jaysus it's complicated but what I mean to say/ask is is the representation in the Parliament faithful to the 'constituencies' of the EU? Literally down to local constituencies or at least regions like Munster, Dublin etc. - why or how is it national representation that is featured in the debate? Surely Germany itself breaks down to several very different regional MEPs who may have very different concerns when using their votes... i.e an East German MEP might vote with Eastern European or Southern Spanish/Italian MEPs and not their fellow national MEPs based on economics of their respective regions..

Another stupid question is which part of our Constitution gets changed?

MEP's don't vote by country except very occasionally. They vote with their European Parliamentary party, which are based on ideological stance rather than geography. Thus, for example, Sinn Fein votes with the rest of the eurosceptics, because they're all in one (eurosceptic) party.

Jaysus Ibis - does that mean Sinn Fein are in there with the Uk Independence Party and Conservatives? - Well strange bedfellows indeed!

#thanks AfricaDave and ibis for answering my queries - I think the idea of voting from a party rather than a country would entice me towards the Yes side on that one.

My next question is why FutureTaoiseach mentioned 15 countries on that same thread by invyrn? That's confusing me now.

Edo wrote:

ibis wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Isn't more power to Germany this way analagous to one county in Ireland being able to make more decisions on national issues because of population-based importance?

I suppose the MEPs are elected by region which can be supra(?) national - i.e. an area of Ireland might have more of a call for an MEP (or not...)

Jaysus it's complicated but what I mean to say/ask is is the representation in the Parliament faithful to the 'constituencies' of the EU? Literally down to local constituencies or at least regions like Munster, Dublin etc. - why or how is it national representation that is featured in the debate? Surely Germany itself breaks down to several very different regional MEPs who may have very different concerns when using their votes... i.e an East German MEP might vote with Eastern European or Southern Spanish/Italian MEPs and not their fellow national MEPs based on economics of their respective regions..

Another stupid question is which part of our Constitution gets changed?

MEP's don't vote by country except very occasionally. They vote with their European Parliamentary party, which are based on ideological stance rather than geography. Thus, for example, Sinn Fein votes with the rest of the eurosceptics, because they're all in one (eurosceptic) party.

Jaysus Ibis - does that mean Sinn Fein are in there with the Uk Independence Party and Conservatives? - Well strange bedfellows indeed!

Well, I oversimplified there - SF are actually in the United Left/Nordic Green Left party, whereas UKIP are in the Independence/Democracy Group along with our own Kathy Sinnott.

That was not an oversimplification. That was plain wrong.

Helium Three wrote:

That was not an oversimplification. That was plain wrong.

Well, if you prefer that, sure - I was just plain wrong there. Good job I corrected it myself even before you pointed that out, eh?

Two questions today about vetoing and our Constitution: Can anyone describe the Veto thing and how we veto now and how it will change or is it very complex? The Veto operates by country doesn't it? - how is that represented? What stuff can we veto on - what are the areas (competencies???) we can veto? I keep hearing we can use a veto on agricultural policies - does it apply to laws being passed by the Parliament? Can we use our veto to pass them or not? I imagine we share characteristics and concerns with other blocs or countries - agriculture with France, Neutrality with Sweden (?), peripherality with Greece, Portugal, Spain (?), French Guiana



Is mine an anyway accurate representation of how our voting allegiances would pan out (so if we lose our veto on something then there's always some other poor feckers up the same creek who would veto the same thing anyway) ?


Is it at all worrying that the changes to our Constitution are not appearing on the ballot paper? The changes are ("I think") appearing in post offices according to Brian Lenihan but not on the ballot paper itself...

AfricanDave wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Another stupid question is which part of our Constitution gets changed?

Your question made me want to read the Bill, so I found it here...
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2008/1408/b1408d.pdf

Article 29 section 4 subsections 9 and 11 get erased, the previous subsection 10 becomes number 9 and new ones get inserted numbering 10 to 15.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Two questions today about vetoing and our Constitution: Can anyone describe the Veto thing and how we veto now and how it will change or is it very complex?

The veto is very simple. It means that if a piece of legislation is proposed which nearly everyone else supports, we can simply say "no", and the legislation cannot go ahead.

Auditor #9 wrote:

The Veto operates by country doesn't it? - how is that represented?

Every other country can say "no" in exactly the same way.

Auditor #9 wrote:

What stuff can we veto on - what are the areas (competencies???) we can veto?

Defence stuff, foreign policy, taxation - I'd need to do a bit of digging. Bear in mind that we don't need any veto over areas like direct taxation, because they're not EU competences in the first place.

Auditor #9 wrote:

I keep hearing we can use a veto on agricultural policies - does it apply to laws being passed by the Parliament?

Currently, EU legislation is mostly passed by the Council alone (although that would change under Lisbon). Even where the Parliament is involved, legislation still has to pass the Council (that's "co-decision").

Auditor #9 wrote:

Can we use our veto to pass them or not?

We can't use our veto to pass legislation - only to block it.

Auditor #9 wrote:

I imagine we share characteristics and concerns with other blocs or countries - agriculture with France, Neutrality with Sweden (?), peripherality with Greece, Portugal, Spain (?), French Guiana

Is mine an anyway accurate representation of how our voting allegiances would pan out (so if we lose our veto on something then there's always some other poor feckers up the same creek who would veto the same thing anyway) ?

We don't use our veto - last time we did was in the 80's over fisheries policy. We have, as you say, allies - countries with similar interests to ours, or that can be persuaded to support us in a quid pro quo. It's extraordinarily rare that we (Ireland) wouldn't have a reasonable level of support.

For example, we usually vote with the French on agriculture (where we oppose the UK), and with the UK on business (where we oppose France).

While vetoes are rarely used, they have a dampening effect on legislative progress. One of the problems is that where a veto exists, a country's government will always get castigated for not using it if the resulting EU legislation is in any way unpopular domestically.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Is it at all worrying that the changes to our Constitution are not appearing on the ballot paper? The changes are ("I think") appearing in post offices according to Brian Lenihan but not on the ballot paper itself...

I've heard that, but don't know for sure. It's a very bad idea if true, although admittedly the thing would look like an essay.

ibis wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Two questions today about vetoing and our Constitution: Can anyone describe the Veto thing and how we veto now and how it will change or is it very complex?

The veto is very simple. It means that if a piece of legislation is proposed which nearly everyone else supports, we can simply say "no", and the legislation cannot go ahead.

Thank you again for replying ibis.

Vetoing: this means we pass legislation or not, simple as that? When we are voting on legislation in the Council then our MEPs do it and they are usually united by country or would our half dozen (?) MEPs vote according to ideology do you think - there's no hard and fast history or rule there? Forgive my ignorance but maybe the council of ministers isn't the same as a body of MEPs? Anyway, how will Lisbon change whatever it is that we do now - this the issue of QMV I take it?

I will try to read the leaflet I got last week for the next questions, I promise .