Lisbon Treaty

[Macy]

I don't get this 'the yes/no side haven't convinced me' attitude.
Why is it they're job to convince you?

This is something that will affect you, and your life, surely it's your own responsibility to inform yourself and make a decision based on the treaty itself?

After all if you(and people in general) make the wrong decision it's you that will suffer
Yes you have to read it to come up with your own view, however (as this thread shows) the treaty's are always open to interpretation and aren't black and white. This is where the issue of being convinced about the merits or otherwise. Loss of power v greater efficiency for example is something that has to be debated and can't be just garnered from the Treaty.

In my opinion we're starting from a position what we have we hold, and it's up for the yes side to convince me/ give me garantee's of the effect of the losses will mean to make me want to change what we already have.

So far it seems to amount to some laughable (coming as it does from the Governing parties and their attitude to the working classes/ poor in this country) nonsense about taking care of the assession states; and about how Ireland would look if we vote no after everything they have done for us.

Nice 1 showed that the Government is capable of closing off issues that the people aren't happy with, so if people aren't happy with aspects of this treaty they should vote no and the Government can renegotiate it so it is acceptable to the people.

[GavinZac]

So far it seems to amount to some laughable (coming as it does from the Governing parties and their attitude to the working classes/ poor in this country) nonsense about taking care of the assession states; and about how Ireland would look if we vote no after everything they have done for us.No, you're not getting it. Its not about our image or reputation, or specifically about the poor souls in hungary. its about ourselves and everybody losing those benefits we have outlined, either by our forced exclusion from what is a member's club that we have no automatic right to be in or entitlement to benefit from, or the benefits that would be lost by the ever decreasingly efficient EU which already suffers from accusations of sluggish bureaucracy. We have a choice: rectify the position that we were in whereby these sort of controls were set in stone/ink for a certain size of the EU, or risk losing the single most important politico-economic development in the history of our continent and shared culture.

[Macy]

That's pure scare mongering. We weren't thrown out after Nice 1, we won't be if we vote no to Lisbon. We'll get the necessary concessions, or a more coherent argument that will get it through in the future (as that's how our democracy works in terms of referenda).

As I said in the post, there is a debate to be had on loss of power versus greater EU efficiency. But frankly, that'll be lost in the waffle of nonsense like we'll be thrown out of the EU if we vote no.

[GavinZac]

That's pure scare mongering. We weren't thrown out after Nice 1, we won't be if we vote no to Lisbon. We'll get the necessary concessions, or a more coherent argument that will get it through in the future (as that's how our democracy works in terms of referenda).

As I said in the post, there is a debate to be had on loss of power versus greater EU efficiency. But frankly, that'll be lost in the waffle of nonsense like we'll be thrown out of the EU if we vote no.

*sigh* yes it will be lost if thats what you're focusing on. We won't, in my opinion, be thrown out of the EU if we vote no; but the attitude that the EU is only for our benefit and ridiculous attitude that we can take it or leave it, is what I was getting at, rather than any expulsion. There seems to be an almost flippant disrespect toward our Union partners because everybody has grown up with the EU simply being a bottomless bucket of cash while we focus on internal matters - Very easy to do as an island nation who's inhabitants exposure to our EU partners rarely goes beyond the beach colonies or going on the **** in Prague. The crucial matter is, will it be worth being part of the EU if we vote no? I don't know.

[dahamsta]

*sigh*GavinZac, I'm not going to tell you again: drop the condescending smart-assed attitude or stay out of CA.

[GavinZac]

GavinZac, I'm not going to tell you again: drop the condescending smart-assed attitude or stay out of CA.

Wait, how am I the one being smart arsed and condescending? In just one post above from a poster that has spent the entire thread misrepresenting and being condescending toward my points, the comments on my arguments were
scare mongering ... (We'll get) a more coherent argument.... waffle of nonsenseAnd a sigh of frustration at this is somehow worse? :confused:

[dahamsta]

They're not serial offenders. You've been stirring the crap on here for weeks now. And this isn't the place to discuss it. I'm not going to tell you again.

[Poor Student]

or the benefits that would be lost by the ever decreasingly efficient EU which already suffers from accusations of sluggish bureaucracy. We have a choice: rectify the position that we were in whereby these sort of controls were set in stone/ink for a certain size of the EU, or risk losing the single most important politico-economic development in the history of our continent and shared culture.

I think Gavin's raising an important point here that seems to be lost in the discussion. There has to be a reasonable trade off between national sovereignty and short term self interest and the interest of the Union as a whole. The decision making stuctures become increasingly ineffective in a larger Union.

[superfrank]

I have not made up my mind on how to vote yet. I am yet to recieve any unbiased information on the subject and, for me, this is crucial. I'm not sideing with parties, I'll go with what I see as best for Ireland.

[mypost]

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/make-your-voice-heard-on-eu-treaty-1306972.html

[mypost]

http://www.libertas.org/content/view/253/1/

Love the ads, as it should keep the message in mind, when the political parties begin the scaremongering tactics in a couple of weeks. :)

[Jerry The Saint]

http://www.libertas.org/content/view/253/1/

Love the ads, as it should keep the message in mind, when the political parties begin the scaremongering tactics in a couple of weeks. :)

FACT

These ads certainly are hard-hitting and thought provoking.


Pie-chart! - FACT

Bertie and Enda are in cahoots! - FACT

Bertie and the "Prince of Darkness" are in cahoots! - FACT

Lucinda Crieghton will KILL US ALL! - FACT


They're like a breath of fresh air these guys.

[pete]

Just stated my research on this but does any one want to suggest the consequences of a Yes or No vote.

- Qualified majority seems logical as will be impossible to get 25 countries to agree on everything. As a general rule Ireland seems to vote with the majority anyway. Have we ever actually used a veto?
- Self amending treaty seems strange however is it possible that the EU Commission already makes decisions without referendums? Is there any real impact of this?

I am generally very pro EU as lets face it they have given use billions & we would be a back water without them. Does not mean I will blindly Vote Yes though. This is not really a Pro or Anti EU debate though...

[dahamsta]

- Self amending treaty seems strange however is it possible that the EU Commission already makes decisions without referendums? Is there any real impact of this?It makes some decisions without referendums, now it wants more. It seems to like like more, lots and lots of more. In answer to your question, I'd suggest framing it wrt to the Irish Constitution and see how that appeals. So, would there be any real impact in allowing the Irish Government to amend the consitution without referenda?

I'm pro-EU too, in fact I consider myself a federalist. But there's federal with central authority and distributed decision-making, and federal with central authority and central decision-making, and me no likey the latter at all; particularly given the greed for power the central authority already has. They need a clock in the gob, and I for one will be giving it to them.

adam

[pete]

It makes some decisions without referendums, now it wants more. It seems to like like more, lots and lots of more. In answer to your question, I'd suggest framing it wrt to the Irish Constitution and see how that appeals. So, would there be any real impact in allowing the Irish Government to amend the consitution without referenda?

Article 48 outlines a complex range of procedures for that need to go through for this amendment. The EU Council needs to call a convention with heads of member states & variety of other requirements so not as easy as 10 guys in Europe deciding. EU National Parliaments can block certain aspects too. Hurts my head to read any more.

The BBC Q & A section (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6901353.stm) also includes the attached document.

I did notice the Treaty enshires steps for Countries to exit the EU which I presume did not exist previously.

Who (organisers background) are Libertas & what is their agenda? From reading their web site they come across as anti EU but that seems to simplify. Their poster campaign is not exactly high browed with "EU army" scaremongering.

[mypost]

Qualified majority seems logical as will be impossible to get 25 countries to agree on everything.

That's the case with democracy everywhere. Even in a 3-tier coalition government such as here, not everyone will agree with each other.

[deecay]

no...

[pete]

Bertie Aherns resignation will help this getting passed as I feel will reduce chance of protest vote.

[DaveyCakes]

I did notice the Treaty enshires steps for Countries to exit the EU which I presume did not exist previously.

.

I was just thinking today who'll be the first country to leave the EU..One of the Scandinavians is always possible, but my money's on Bulgaria.

[pete]

...my money's on Bulgaria.

Want to share your reasoning? Given you have queue of other countries trying to get in can't see any "poorer" countries leaving. Obviously it would be possible to leave but leave an economic union with regards customs etc... in place.

[mypost]

I was just thinking today who'll be the first country to leave the EU..One of the Scandinavians is always possible, but my money's on Bulgaria.

The treaty has an "opt-out" clause regarding the European Union, to be decided voluntarily by the country itself.

Cowen and co, will never do that, so it's not an issue.

[GavinZac]

The treaty has an "opt-out" clause regarding the European Union, to be decided voluntarily by the country itself.

Cowen and co, will never do that, so it's not an issue.

Why would they want to?

[DaveyCakes]

I got the department of foreign affairs booklet in the post today....the EU has grown a lot judging by the map that's in it..Ukraine, Belarus, Switzerland, Norway, Russia (Kaliningrad), Moldova, and former Yugoslav countries all included.

[holidaysong]

I've read the treaty and with neutrality and taxation decisions safeguarded as being unanimous and with subsidiarity at the core of the EU at present (I do believe they try not to stick their noses in where it's not wanted), I really don't see why anyone would want to vote against it. I agree that 27 commissioners is too many as the 2/3 commissioners will be rotated on a purely equal basis so I see no problem at all.

[Da Real Rover]

-It is an ammendment to already existing EU treaties, which were based on the EU consitution (which was rejected)

-It will reduced the 26 counties say in the EU. The voting power will be halved in the Council of Europe. A proposal must be rejected by at least 1/3 of the votes to be rejected. The commission isn't required to withdraw it, although it remains only a proposal.

-It will give major EU member states greater power while reucing smaller states' power

-The 26 counties' neutraility will be abolished and the military must be made availible to the EU for peace keeping and defense.

-More tax payer money must be spend on the military to be able to compensate for this.

For all these reasons, I will be voting NO.
Everyone in Ireland realises what the EU has done for us but we DO NOT OWE THEM OUR NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY.

[TheBoss]

Any chance of a poll been set up, to see the general point of view here.

[mypost]

-It is an ammendment to already existing EU treaties, which were based on the EU consitution (which was rejected)

-It will reduced the 26 counties say in the EU. The voting power will be halved in the Council of Europe. A proposal must be rejected by at least 1/3 of the votes to be rejected. The commission isn't required to withdraw it, although it remains only a proposal.

-It will give major EU member states greater power while reucing smaller states' power

-The 26 counties' neutraility will be abolished and the military must be made availible to the EU for peace keeping and defense.

-More tax payer money must be spend on the military to be able to compensate for this.

For all these reasons, I will be voting NO.
Everyone in Ireland realises what the EU has done for us but we DO NOT OWE THEM OUR NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY.

http://www.libertas.org/content/view/270/1/

[GavinZac]

For all these reasons, I will be voting NO.
Everyone in Ireland realises what the EU has done for us but we DO NOT OWE THEM OUR NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY.

Do France/Germany owe us theirs? Either side having too much voting power is a bad thing. Balancing them properly is a good thing.

[Da Real Rover]

Do France/Germany owe us theirs? Either side having too much voting power is a bad thing. Balancing them properly is a good thing.

Irelands vote will be so insignificant that we will balance nothing.

[GavinZac]

Irelands vote will be so insignificant that we will balance nothing.

Next to Germany's 82 million inhabitants, we are insignificant. You're either for a 'united' Europe or you're not, so demanding more than the 20:1 ratio you'd expect means you really have to consider whether you want the benefits or not.


Germany 82,210,000
France 63,753,140
UK 60,587,300
Italy 59,337,888
Spain 45,116,894
Poland 38,115,967
Romania 21,565,119
Ne'lands 16,372,715
Greece 11,125,179
Portugal 10,599,095
Belgium 10,584,534
Czech R 10,306,709
Hungary 10,066,158
Sweden 9,142,817
Austria 8,316,487
Bulgaria 7,679,290
Denmark 5,457,415
Slovakia 5,396,168
Finland 5,289,128
Ireland 4,239,848

This treaty aims to give equality to EU citizen's votes, rather than you and me having more voting power than those in the larger states. If you can't see equality/empathy with an inhabitant of Germany or France or any of the 350 million citizens who live in countries with 10 times our population, then the Union isn't for you. Fortunately for the rest of us, we quite like the Union and the fact that it has dragged us kicking and screaming out of the third world and into providing far more than our fair share of IS/IT services.

[Poor Student]

For all these reasons, I will be voting NO.
Everyone in Ireland realises what the EU has done for us but we DO NOT OWE THEM OUR NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY.

That's so mid 1900's. We live in a post-sovereigntist age where nations can achieve their aspirations without narrow definitions of sovereignty. For example, we've already benefitted ourselves by giving up some soveriengty to the EU. It's not the be all and end all. Cataluynia gets on fine without full sovereignty. It's not an aim in itself, it's something that needs to be balanced up among other considerations.

[pete]

-The 26 counties' neutraility will be abolished and the military must be made availible to the EU for peace keeping and defense.
[/B].

Not to be pedantic but there are 27 members. Please tell me where in the Treaty out neutrality is abolished?Are you suggesting we are mandated to provide troops? If you are going to invent things try to be a bit more inventive. :rolleyes:

[SligoBrewer]

Not to be pedantic but there are 27 members.

I think he means the 26 counties of Ireland.;)

[jebus]

I'm voting Yes for the simple reason that Sinn Fein and the Catholic Church are telling me to vote No. Democracy doesn't work people! :)

[mypost]

That's so mid 1900's. We live in a post-sovereigntist age where nations can achieve their aspirations without narrow definitions of sovereignty. For example, we've already benefitted ourselves by giving up some soveriengty to the EU. It's not the be all and end all.

This would be akin to Tibet giving up it's sovereignty to China. Wait a minute........

For the first 20 years of our membership, the EU didn't want to know about/help us. Telling us how we've benefitted from the EU carries no weight in this treaty. This is about how Europe shall be governed. It's about big nations wielding their weight over smaller ones. It's about losing a commissioner, and therefore influence in Europe. It's an undemocratic joke, where only one country is allowed to vote, because the other countries would reject it.

As one Danish MEP stated at a seminar earlier in the year, it's a demand of "Sign, read afterwards".

[holidaysong]

-The 26 counties' neutraility will be abolished and the military must be made availible to the EU for peace keeping and defense.


That is a blatant lie.

I seen a sticker on a signpost yesterday saying, 'Lisbon Treaty: If you don't know, vote no!' - Who are the fools who are endorsing this completely ignorant way of voting? Surely 'If you don't know', then reading the treaty to find out what it is all about is a far more rational response than voting no as a knee jerk reaction? The 'Vote no' campaign seems to be based 100% on scaremongering. I'm surprised more people cannot see through this to be honest.

[SligoBrewer]

The 'Vote no' campaign seems to be based 100% on scaremongering. I'm surprised more people cannot see through this to be honest.

What is the 'yes' campaign based on may I ask?

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0428/1209158498840.html

[pete]

I's about losing a commissioner, and therefore influence in Europe. It's an undemocratic joke, where only one country is allowed to vote, because the other countries would reject it.

Different countries have different rules. Who are we to tell any country that they have to hold a referendum in conflict with their own constitution?

BTW we lose a commissioner 5 years out of every 15. Surely you are not suggesting create some mickey mouse Commissioner position just so can have 27. What happens when we have say 35 member?

[mypost]

Different countries have different rules. Who are we to tell any country that they have to hold a referendum in conflict with their own constitution?

Under the earlier draft, roughly half of the countries wished to hold referendums, including the UK. France and Holland did, and rejected it. Now those countries are being punished by the EU, by not been allowed to hold referendums. We only have it, because it's required under our current laws. If it's passed, we won't be allowed to hold any more EU referenda, and our right to our turn to hold the Presidency of the European Union.


BTW we lose a commissioner 5 years out of every 15. Surely you are not suggesting create some mickey mouse Commissioner position just so can have 27. What happens when we have say 35 member?

We hold our commissioner to maintain our say in Brussels. Why should we give up our right to have one, because the EU decided to admit more members? :confused: If they want to bring in 35 members, then each of them is entitled to a commissioner. Don't want that; it's very simple, don't admit new members.

[Block G Raptor]

I've one question for the Yes camp. whats wrong with the status quo? I'm assuming if the treaty is rejected then nothing will change? also all this scaremongering "oh we'll be thrown out of the EU if we vote no" is bull

[holidaysong]

I've one question for the Yes camp. whats wrong with the status quo? I'm assuming if the treaty is rejected then nothing will change? also all this scaremongering "oh we'll be thrown out of the EU if we vote no" is bull

Nothing changing is the problem. We need to streamline the decision making process within the EU so that it is easier and quicker to get decisions made. It is impractical in a union of 27 member states to have decision making rules in place that were designed for 6 and 12 members. For one country to be allowed to have a veto on such a wide variety of issues is nonsense. They hold up the entire process and a lot of time and effort then has to go into either redrafting or convincing the country in question to drop their veto. I think retaining our veto on issues such as justice, defence and taxation is more than enough (and indeed I would insist on it).

And of course we wouldn't get thrown out of the EU.

[holidaysong]

We hold our commissioner to maintain our say in Brussels. Why should we give up our right to have one, because the EU decided to admit more members? :confused: If they want to bring in 35 members, then each of them is entitled to a commissioner. Don't want that; it's very simple, don't admit new members.

There are other ways of maintaining your say in Brussels. I don't see how a token commissioner in some made up postion will give us any more of a say.

[mypost]

We need to streamline the decision making process within the EU so that it is easier and quicker to get decisions made. It is impractical in a union of 27 member states to have decision making rules in place that were designed for 6 and 12 members. For one country to be allowed to have a veto on such a wide variety of issues is nonsense. They hold up the entire process and a lot of time and effort then has to go into either redrafting or convincing the country in question.

We don't need to streamline the process. Take any coalition government across Europe. They don't agree with each other when it comes to policymaking, and the process waits until a compromise has been reached. Yet they still function. The EU is the same except on a larger scale. The difference here is, that some countries will not get a say in how policies are formed, and will be the political equivalent of "yes" men. That benefits France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and England. Noone else.

[holidaysong]

What is the 'yes' campaign based on may I ask?

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0428/1209158498840.html

I have never and will never vote for Fianna Fáil. Thankfully I can see past party politics to see that the Yes vote is best for Ireland and the EU.

It is ironic that you link to this article because in it, Bertie licks up to the farmers (as he often does). If I was a farmer I might actually vote against the Treaty due to the way the CAP is being slowly but surely torn away. I'm not a farmer however, and I think the sooner the CAP is scrapped the better. Maybe then we consumers can enjoy some competition in our food market and enjoy the lower prices that the free market would ensure. I think the farmers who just sit around and wait for the cheque from Brussels will get a hard landing when the CAP is finally rolled up and for Bertie to lie to them saying that the EU is great for them really is quite unfair. The benefits of the EU as a whole to farmers, and the benefits of the Lisbon Treaty should not be confused but I can see why a farmer would vote against the Lisbon Treaty as a protest against the current operating of the CAP.

[holidaysong]

We don't need to streamline the process. Take any coalition government across Europe. They don't agree with each other when it comes to policymaking, and the process waits until a compromise has been reached. Yet they still function. The EU is the same except on a larger scale. The difference here is, that some countries will not get a say in how policies are formed, and will be the political equivalent of "yes" men. That benefits France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and England. Noone else.

Any country can propose legislation. They may not get it passed though if others do not vote for it. I don't see how this is different to a party in a national parliament proposing legislation and it not getting passed.

[Poor Student]

This would be akin to Tibet giving up it's sovereignty to China. Wait a minute........

No it wouldn't. That issue has nothing to do with this debate.


For the first 20 years of our membership, the EU didn't want to know about/help us. Telling us how we've benefitted from the EU carries no weight in this treaty.

I'm simply pointing out sovereignty is not the be all and end all of things.


It's about losing a commissioner, and therefore influence in Europe.

The commissioners are supposed to work for the good of the entire union not their state's interests.


It's an undemocratic joke, where only one country is allowed to vote, because the other countries would reject it.

Different states have different consitutional set ups. We live in an age of indirect democracy, the people's wishes are exercised through their elected officials.

[GavinZac]

I've one question for the Yes camp. whats wrong with the status quo? I'm assuming if the treaty is rejected then nothing will change? also all this scaremongering "oh we'll be thrown out of the EU if we vote no" is bull :confused: Something has to change. Either they'll be forced to go away and attempt to write another million words to try to bring sanity to the system, or they'll think "hmm, so the the ungrateful little *******s are done being the highest net receiver in the history of the union and now they want out? off with them. The citizens of Budapest and Bucharest wish them a safe journey across the Atlantic."


Under the earlier draft, roughly half of the countries wished to hold referendums, including the UK. France and Holland did, and rejected it. Now those countries are being punished by the EU, by not been allowed to hold referendums.The EU cannot direct its member states to do anything of the sort. If the French people's elected EU representatives were foisting something like this on them unwanted, you don't imagine there would be a slighty furore? This is the country that riots because of arrests.


We hold our commissioner to maintain our say in Brussels. Why should we give up our right to have one, because the EU decided to admit more members? :confused: If they want to bring in 35 members, then each of them is entitled to a commissioner. Don't want that; it's very simple, don't admit new members.More commissioners, more bureaucracy for the same effect? Everybody having more just results in the same loss of power and greater expense.

I've one question for the anti-treaty camp. You place Ireland's well being ahead of Germany or Poland's, right?

[mypost]

Something has to change. Either they'll be forced to go away and attempt to write another million words to try to bring sanity to the system, or they'll think "hmm, so the the ungrateful little *******s are done being the highest net receiver in the history of the union and now they want out? off with them. The citizens of Budapest and Bucharest wish them a safe journey across the Atlantic."

More commissioners, more bureaucracy for the same effect? Everybody having more just results in the same loss of power and greater expense.

The EU's problem, not ours.


I've one question for the anti-treaty camp. You place Ireland's well being ahead of Germany or Poland's, right?

You think as an Irishman, that we shouldn't? :confused:

When voting on it, the French and Dutch electorate put their own well being ahead of everyone else's. Problem?? :confused:

[GavinZac]

The EU's problem, not ours.We are the EU. Then again, you compared the EU in Ireland to China in Tibet, so I don't know why I'm bothering :rolleyes:
You think as an Irishman, that we shouldn't? :confused: Of course not. Whats the bloody point of participating in the European Union if you're only looking out for your own back? If other countries took that attitude, where would we be?

When voting on it, the French and Dutch electorate put their own well being ahead of everyone else's. Problem?? :confused:
No, they didn't. They were voting on a constitution for the European Union. Apart from "it" being a different vote, I would imagine they weren't so small minded to think the world revolved around them while voting and actually gave some consideration to what the referendum was in the context of, the well being of the Union. However out here on our little island you'll get the odd lad who doesn't really get how the outside world works and because he's ever so nationalistic will align himself with the likes of Sinn Féin to prove it.

[SligoBrewer]

I have to say, the arguments of GavinZac and the UCD lads on here has been then most educated of any persons I have heard thus far. They have convinced me from the No camp to the Yes camp, however, I can't vote. Lovely world we live in eh?