Welcome to Simtropolis
|
Topic Title: "Lisbon II" Topic Summary: Ireland goes to the polls on the Treaty of Lisbon, again. Created On: Oct-02-2009 07:43 AM Status: Post and Reply |
||
 Search Topic |
Topic Tools
|
#1623472
Oct-06-2009 10:29 AM
That's a lot of money...Yes and No groups spent at least €3.5 million on treaty campaigns
ANALYSIS: Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour spent a total of about €1 million campaigning for a Yes vote in the referendum, writes MARY MINIHAN Political parties said they spent about €1.47 million, including contributions from European Parliament groups, while various civil society groups and corporations revealed spending of about €2 million. The Yes side’s biggest spenders were Ireland for Europe, Fianna Fáil and Ryanair, who were all about the €500,000 mark, while anti-treaty group Cóir was far ahead of other No campaigners with €250,000. The Referendum Commission had a budget of €4.2 million but spent “well under €4 million”, according to a spokesman. The commission’s role was to explain the referendum proposals, promote public awareness of the referendum and encourage the electorate to vote. The Department of Foreign Affairs spent €700,000, a spokesman said, with the bulk of that figure going towards the cost of informative leaflets, postcards and a website. The European Commission spent €150,000 on a guide to the Lisbon Treaty distributed by Irish Sunday newspapers. This spending was in addition to signing a €1.6 million public relations contract to provide information about the European Union. A spokeswoman said this work would continue until next May. On the Yes side, Fianna Fáil’s spend was expected to be €500,000, according to a party spokesman. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe grouping in the European Parliament provided €125,000 of that amount. A Fine Gael spokesman said his “best estimate” of the party’s campaign spend was €300,000, with between €80,000 and €90,000 of that coming from its partners in the European Parliament, the European People’s Party. The Labour Party spent €200,000. Half of that amount came from party coffers and the other €100,000 came from colleagues in the Party of European Socialists (PES) grouping in the European Parliament, according to campaign director Joe Costello. The Green Party ended up spending about €13,000, having originally said its spending would be limited to €5,000. A spokesman said the party had initially not realised it could obtain additional funding from Brussels. The United Kingdom Independence Party’s (UKIP) entrance into the campaign “redoubled our resolve”, he said. Extra funds were then sought from the Green group in the European Parliament, and €8,000 was received. Ryanair’s chief executive Michael O’Leary said last week that the airline spent just under €500,000 on the campaign. Intel’s spending was “in and around” €300,000, a spokesman said. He said the decision of Intel Ireland’s general manager, Jim O’Hara, to intervene in the debate, combined with former Intel boss Craig Barrett’s widely-reported appearance at the Global Economic Forum at Farmleigh, Dublin gave the company’s campaign resonance and “dimensions beyond pure spend”. The employers’ group Ibec had a budget of €150,000. Among the civil society groups, Ireland for Europe, led by former European Parliament president Pat Cox and Prof Brigid Laffan, raised and spent €500,000, a spokeswoman said. A spokesman for We Belong said the organisation cast its net far and wide to raise €250,000 through corporate donations and contributions through the PayPal system on its website. Generation Yes spent €30,000 through donations and fundraising events such as table quizzes, a spokeswoman said. Meanwhile, on the No side, Cóir spokesman Brian Hickey estimated the organisation spent about €250,000. Hickey said the group had quite an extensive mailing list of donors. “I was in the office one afternoon there last week and three people in the couple of hours that I was there just came in off the street to give cash donations,” he added. Sinn Féin spent about €100,000, of which €15,000 came from the European United Left – Nordic Green Left (known as GUE/NGL) grouping in the European Parliament, a spokesman said. A spokesman for Socialist MEP for Dublin Joe Higgins said “every penny” of the €55,000-€60,000 he obtained from GUE/NGL was spent. A four-page glossy leaflet was delivered professionally to homes in Dublin and Cork, while volunteers distributed the document elsewhere, the spokesman said. UKIP leader Nigel Farage, who said he was representing the Europe of Freedom and Democracy grouping in the European Parliament, said “we didn’t spend more than €190,000 in total”. This included the printing and distribution of urban and rural versions of a controversial leaflet that was criticised by the Labour Court. Farage said the leaflet was distributed by An Post. “If you want to do a deal with your national post office, they’re quite happy to take big contracts, aren’t they?” A spokesman for An Post said: “We delivered this in the same way that we delivered other referendum material.” Libertas’s spend was between €100,000 and €120,000 this time, a spokesman for the organisation fronted by Declan Ganley said. An umbrella grouping representing 15 small organisations, No to Lisbon, spent about €30,000, according to a spokesman. The People’s Movement, led by former MEP Patricia McKenna, estimated that about €20,000 had been spent. Richard Boyd Barrett, of the People Before Profit Alliance (PBPA), said PBPA’s total spend was “certainly under €10,000”. Anthony Coughlan, director of National Platform, said the group spent between €3,000 and €4,000, mainly on the postage and circulation of documents and photocopying. Donations cannot exceed €6,348.69. A spokesman for the Standards in Public Office (Sipo) Commission said political parties are required to supply documentation on donations by the end of January next, but there are no regulations regarding spending limits in a referendum. Unlike political parties, other groups are not required to disclose donations received in referendum campaigns. A political donations account must be opened if donations in excess of €126.97 are received. The cost: what the main groups spent YES Fianna Fáil €500,000 Fine Gael €300,000 Labour €200,000 Green Party €13,000 Ireland for Europe €500,000 Ryanair just under €500,000 Intel €300,000 We Belong €250,000 Ibec €150,000 Generation Yes €30,000 NO Cóir €250,000 UKIP €190,000 Libertas €100,000-€120,000 Sinn Féin €100,000 Socialist Party €55,000-€60,000 People’s Movement €20,000 People Before Profit Alliance under €10,000 National Platform €3,000 OTHER Referendum Commission under €4 million Department of Foreign Affairs €700,000 European Commission at least €150,000 Figures supplied by individual parties and groups © 2009 The Irish Times And despite what the UKIP leader claims, no public money was given to the "yes" side, as it's unconstitutional to do so.  |
#1623738
Oct-06-2009 07:36 PM
British people have never voted on membership of the EU. They did once vote on membership of the Common Market, but that is something entirely different. The British people haven't voted on EU membership simply because the Maastricht Treaty is a consolidation of all treaties entered into under the European Communities Act (1972). According to Wikipedia you're right that the question you answered on 5th June 1975 was 'Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?', although practically speaking the electorate voted on the European Communities Act, as this is the instrument for incorporating European law into British. And I refuse to believe that this was not highlighted by the British no camp, so simply saying that you voted on the Common Market would be wrong. Common Market is also in brackets; it's the European Community (which should be Communities) that is the important part, which, at the time, according to the law, meant the the European Economic Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community and 'a treaty entered into by the United Kingdom after the 22nd January 1972, […] it is so specified […] a draft of the Order in Council has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.' The European Commission, the Council of the European Union, the European Council, the European Court of Justice and the European Parliament already existed long before the Brits voted on anything. And all the other stuff that have come along the road? Well, I didn't live to experience the EEC or any of the other C's. However, by the power of Google I found the Rome News-Tribune from the city of Rome in the American state of Georgia, dated the 29th October 1971, writing on the Parliament vote. From the Associated Press: Market at a glanceThe European Common Market is a group of European nations joined together to abolish all trade barriers among themselves and apply common tariffs to the 'outside world. The formal name is the European Economic Community or EEC.The six founding members are West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. How does it work? German machine tools, Belgian textiles, or French cars are sold in each of the other member nations duty free. Goods, capital and labor cross borders of Common Market countries as freely as they cross state lines in America. Since the community started in 1958, trade within it has expanded by more than 500 per cent. Some national economic growth rates are among the fastest in the world. Profits, investment and living standards have grown far faster in the community than in Britain. Britain and the other market applicants—Ireland, Denmark and Norway—would enlarge the community into the world's biggest free trading area, containing nearly 500 million people, more than the population of either the Soviet Union or the United States. Plans are being discussed for a full economic and monetary union, including creation of a common currency, that could spur moves toward political union, perhaps in the 1980s. When you have a national referendum, the consequences will be necessarily highlighted. Saying that the British people 'only' voted for the 'Common Market' (EEC), is to vastly underestimated them in quite a demeaning way. |
 |
#1623937
Oct-07-2009 06:00 AM
| I can tell you from experiance rather than reading about it, that the British voted to join and stay in the Common Market. That was to leave EFTA and join the EEC, the organisation of which was vastly different from what the EU has become. It was never suggested that Europe would evolve into a superstate and De Gaulle's ideas were considerably different from those of subsequent French politicians. There was no mention of a common currency, European Army, or any of the other things that have happened since. Also as part of the joining agreement Britain was given various vetos which the euro politicians have since constantly tried to circumvent or erode. A classic example being the working time directive which Britain vetoed, then the clauses were put into the Health and Safety directive to which Britain didn't have a veto. None of this was ever told to the British people at the time of voting, and it would be interesting to see what the vote will be now that the British people know where Europe is heading. In fact I believe every people from every country should have a referenda. I suspect that the vote in Britain would be a resounding NO even if that means that Britain had to leave the EU. Which of course would then save Britain a large amount of money. Whilst on the subject of money many British people want to retain the Pound Sterling and not accept the Euro. As was said by William Haig (Tory) "I can NEVER see a time when it would be in Britain's interest to ditch the Pound and join the Euro." |
#1624000
Oct-07-2009 10:42 AM
| What makes you think that the UK would benefit from leaving the EU and wishing to join the Free Trade Area? You are aware that Norway is one such member, although they need to conform to rules dictated by Brussels and pay millions in contributions, Further to that, as non-EU members, they get absolutely none of that money returned. The UK would still have to make a contribution, in the billions, and they will get absolutely nothing whatsoever in return. EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – Non-EU member Norway is growing increasingly frustrated over its lack of influence over Brussels' decision making process, an internal document shows. Oslo's interests are getting harder to defend, as the EU is expanding its competences beyond what the initial terms of the agreement regulating Norway's participation to the bloc's internal market covered, an internal note of the Norwegian ambassador in Brussels, obtained by Aftenposten, says. |
THE IMPERIAL ATLANTEAN EMPIRE Trixie Nominated City Journal 2007 & 2008 Incredibly Proud Memberstate of the SimCityJournalUnion The largest, oldest and most creative in the SC4 Sphere |
#1624004
Oct-07-2009 11:13 AM
| i think if Britain had to pay even to leave the EU then that wouldn't be a "contribution" but a "European tax" common sense and i'm sure international law would demand that if it receives no perks then it should pay no money well, thanks a lot Ireland >  |
| progess can only exist if there is an ideology to work towards, not having an ideology is like trying to win a race against your brother by running in a little circle. - Gilbert Keith Chesterton "When common sense ceases to be common, a society is in terminal decay" - same as above Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it Gilbert Keith Chesterton My distaste for Social Liberals knows no bounds, any wrongdoing often brings guilt or shame when caught, but it can only work if people are free to shame said wrong behaviour and if shaming is banned then nothing can ever be wrong unless it falls under the law everybody's business is everybody else's business |
#1624034
Oct-07-2009 12:11 PM
| You're not understanding the point. They wouldn't pay to leave. They would be contributing financially, even if just part for the trade area, like Norway, only given our larger market and population, we would be paying more than Norway...a lot more. Also....the UK Parliament, like almost every other European member state parliament has already ratified the Treaty, so you can hardly blame Ireland. |
THE IMPERIAL ATLANTEAN EMPIRE Trixie Nominated City Journal 2007 & 2008 Incredibly Proud Memberstate of the SimCityJournalUnion The largest, oldest and most creative in the SC4 Sphere |
#1624161
Oct-07-2009 04:34 PM
You're not understanding the point. They wouldn't pay to leave. They would be contributing financially, even if just part for the trade area, like Norway, only given our larger market and population, we would be paying more than Norway...a lot more. Also....the UK Parliament, like almost every other European member state parliament has already ratified the Treaty, so you can hardly blame Ireland. The Labour Party ratified the EU treaty, without the permission of the people. So it just doesn't count. Also if we leave, we leave, no more money from us, and we will be free to trade with the whole world. No referendum = no permission. End of. |
#1624300
Oct-07-2009 06:59 PM
I can tell you from experiance rather than reading about it, that the British voted to join and stay in the Common Market. That was to leave EFTA and join the EEC, the organisation of which was vastly different from what the EU has become. So they did not care to enlighten themselves what the vote really was about? Did you not read the Associated Press piece from 1971? Are you telling me that the good people of Rome, a tiny town in the northwest of Georgia, US, knew more about the EC and the years ahead than the British electorate did in 1975? You might save a few quid on the membership fee if you leave the EU completely, but you'll lose the access to the internal market. And guess what, that carries a price tag too! You could maybe keep your access to the internal market and join the EEA if the other participants agree, but then you'd still have to pay—and have no say on the workings in Brussel. Currently Norway has to rely on the Danes and Scots/Brits to get their voice heard where it matters—which countries would Britain rely on? Strangely enough, the Maastricht Treaty's constitutionality was challenged in Britain! Granted, Lord Rees-Mogg's was not concerned about what the common man meant, but rather what he saw as the transferral of power, but this is largely what the current EU opposition is based on. Guess what? The court turned him down (the Speaker was even concerned that the court might have infringed on the Bill of Rights simply by hearing the case…). I don't know if you know this, but there is normally no referendum held whenever a government signed a treaty. For example, the British government signed and ratified the Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany in 1990 without holding a referendum on it—or in your words, 'without the permission of the people'. It does not mean that the treaty 'doesn't count'. Two closing points: (1) A treaty by itself is not domestic law. Parliament must still incorporate the treaty in existing bills, or pass a new act; where of course all the representative will get to vote on them. (2) The history behind it all is easily accessible. |
|
Edited: 10/07/2009 at 07:10 PM by krbe
#1624313
Oct-07-2009 07:15 PM
| The people gave them permission when they elected them to Parliament...or do you need me to explain the role of Parliament to you? Just as they did with previous treaties. You also have a rather lacking education on the realities of British trade, especially as over 50% of our exports are to the EU. Would you also like me to explain the complexities of the British systems of trade? |
THE IMPERIAL ATLANTEAN EMPIRE Trixie Nominated City Journal 2007 & 2008 Incredibly Proud Memberstate of the SimCityJournalUnion The largest, oldest and most creative in the SC4 Sphere |
#1624660
Oct-08-2009 12:19 PM
The people gave them permission when they elected them to Parliament...or do you need me to explain the role of Parliament to you? Just as they did with previous treaties. Not So! neither did I give them permission to rob me blind by misappropriating public punds for their expenses. Electing a servant is not a carte blanche for them to do what they like. The role of parliament is to serve me. Simple. |
#1624666
Oct-08-2009 12:36 PM
| There's nothing not so about it. A referendum was promised if the Constitutional proposal was the final decision. It was not. I have read both the former constitution document and the Lisbon Treaty and they are different. So I'm rather more informed about the issue than most. The ratification of the treaty is nothing new, former treaties have been ratified in parliament, this is no different. The role of parliament also includes ratification of international agreements, treaties and policy. |
THE IMPERIAL ATLANTEAN EMPIRE Trixie Nominated City Journal 2007 & 2008 Incredibly Proud Memberstate of the SimCityJournalUnion The largest, oldest and most creative in the SC4 Sphere |
#1626222
Oct-10-2009 10:12 AM
Polish leader ratifies EU treaty
Polish President Lech Kaczynski has signed the European Union's much-delayed Lisbon Treaty. His signature means the treaty, which is intended to streamline decision-making, remains un-ratified by only one country, the Czech Republic. It must be ratified by all 27 member states before it can come into force. Mr Kaczynski, a noted Eurosceptic, said he was convinced the treaty would be successful but that the EU should remain a union of sovereign states. The treaty's prospects of coming into force received a major lift last week when Irish voters approved it in a second referendum. But the Czech President Vaclav Klaus then raised fresh doubts when he said he would not sign the treaty unless his country was granted an opt-out from the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights. Mr Klaus raised fears about possible property claims by Germans expelled from the then Czechoslovakia after World War II. 'Historic' Mr Kaszynski said in a speech just before the signing he was "deeply convinced" that the "great experiment" of the treaty would be successful. "The fact that the Irish people changed their minds meant the revival of the treaty, and there are no longer any obstacles to its ratification," he said. "Today is a very important day in the history of Poland and the European Union." But he said that the EU was a "union of sovereign states" and should remain so, adding that it remain open to new members such as countries of the former Yugoslavia and Georgia. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, European Parliament speaker Jerzy Buzek and Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, whose country holds the EU's rotating presidency, attended the Polish ceremony. Welcoming the Polish signing, Mr Reinfeldt said that the EU "eagerly awaits" the full ratification of the treaty. "We do not need more delays," he said. The BBC's Jonny Dymond in Brussels says that Mr Kaczynski's signature leaves the Czech Republic, and in particular its Eurosceptic president, entirely isolated. But, he says, that appears not to concern Mr Klaus. The president is insisting on a "footnote" being added to the text so as to exempt his country from the Charter of Fundamental Rights much like Poland and the UK already are, our correspondent says. "Before ratification, the Czech Republic must, additionally at least, negotiate a similar exemption," Mr Klaus was quoted by the Reuters news agency as saying on Friday. "I believe that this exemption can be resolved quickly." He said the charter would "allow [claimants] to circumvent Czech courts and place, for example, property claims by people expelled after World War II directly at the European Court of Justice". Mr Klaus has said previously that he will not sign the treaty until the Czech Constitutional Court rules on a new legal complaint against it, lodged by senators allied to him. The Czech parliament has already approved the treaty and his critics note that it is the government, not the president, who negotiates international treaties. Nevertheless, President Klaus's move has already had an impact in Brussels, our correspondent adds. Officials say the next summit at the end of October will now probably be devoted solely to dealing with Czech objections, rather than selecting people for the new posts created by the Lisbon Treaty. France has already expressed opposition to Mr Klaus's demand. Supporters of the treaty are also concerned that if Mr Klaus holds up the treaty, Britain's opposition Conservatives may fulfil their pledge for a referendum on it should they come to power. A UK general election must be held by June next year. At the Conservative party conference this week, shadow foreign secretary William Hague restated its opposition to the treaty, saying the EU should not place its own president above any nation's. http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/8300311.stm Published: 2009/10/10 10:44:25 GMT © BBC MMIX |
#1639900
Nov-03-2009 03:45 PM
EU reform treaty passes last test
The president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, has signed the EU's Lisbon Treaty, the final step in the charter's ratification. The treaty was drawn up to streamline decision-making in the EU, and is a watered-down version of a draft EU constitution rejected four years ago. Among its measures, it creates a European Council president and alters the way member states vote. The treaty could now come into force as early as December. The Lisbon Treaty's supporters say it will allow the EU to operate more efficiently and give it greater influence in world affairs. Critics say it will cede too many national powers to Brussels. Speaking in Washington ahead of an EU-US summit, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso welcomed the removal of the "last hurdle" to the treaty's passage. "I think that the transformational potential that is there, the new external profile for the European Union, will be felt immediately," he said. In the UK, William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary for the opposition Conservatives, said it would no longer be possible to hold a referendum on the treaty if his party won a general election next year. The party had previously argued that the treaty should be put to a popular vote. Court 'bias' British Prime Minister Gordon Brown welcomed the ratification, and said it marked the end of years of debate. "Today is a day when Europe looks forward," he said. The Czech Republic was the last of the EU's 27 member states to ratify the treaty. Mr Klaus signed it shortly after the Czech constitutional court rejected a complaint against it, ruling that it was in line with the Czech constitution. Announcing in Prague that he had signed the treaty, the Czech leader accused the court of bias and said the Czech Republic would "cease to be a sovereign state". The Eurosceptic Mr Klaus had recently said he would no longer attempt to block the treaty, after receiving the promise of an opt-out from the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights. Mr Klaus said the opt-out was needed to avoid property claims from ethnic Germans expelled from Czechoslovakia after World War II. The Lisbon Treaty replaced an earlier draft constitution that was rejected in referendums in France and the Netherlands in 2005. The treaty was initially rejected in a referendum in Ireland, before being endorsed in a second Irish referendum last month. It would create two major new posts: a new European Council president who would serve a term of two-and-a-half years, and a new foreign policy chief whose role would combine those of the existing foreign affairs representative and external affairs commissioner. In addition, the treaty will alter voting procedures, with national vetoes to become the exception rather than the rule in most policy areas. For the first time, it will also offer a way out to any member states that decide to leave the EU.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/8340664.stm Published: 2009/11/03 18:07:02 GMT © BBC MMIX |
#1639985
Nov-03-2009 06:17 PM
 |
For life is quite absurd, And death's the final word. You must always face the curtain with a bow! Forget about your sin -- give the audience a grin, Enjoy it, it's your last chance anyhow!  |
#1639992
Nov-03-2009 06:30 PM
I second that |
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
Better than a thousand hollow words, is one word that brings peace. Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. Gautama Buddha 
 Go proteins! |
|
Simtropolis
» Simtropolis Social Forum » Current Events
»
"Lisbon II"
|
Topic Tools |
2002 - 2009 Simtropolis.com
Many Cities, One Community
www.sc3000.com
SimCity 2000
SC Urban Renewal Kit
Cities XL
SimCity 4 Deluxe
SimCity Societies
Live Chat (12 users)
