Lisbon Treaty

[mypost]

That's the "grass is greener" argument. :o

As ruling governments across the EU, let alone in the EU itself, are unpopular in their own countries, the argument holds no water.

[dahamsta]

anto1208 banned 1 from CA 1 week. mypost, do you want to be next?

[Angus]

I am a no voter to this but supportive of EU membership - I assume it will be passed

But if it isn't, what then ? Do the EU have the cojones to abandon this ? Is there is a plan for what happens if it fails again ?

My sense is that if it is voted down, it will give the rest of europe, especially those in czech, holland, germany who are skeptical, will then have political cover to drop it all

So, this is the ballgame - it is is passed, europe will rejoice and the skeptics will have no policitcl cover - it it fails, the bandwagon to fail to ratify will keep on a rollin'

[boovidge]

If Ireland vote "no" then the British will get a referendum on Lisbon. They'll definately vote "no" so it'll be dead in the water,in theory.

[mypost]

It will, and they won't be (as our government is warning about us) "isolated". It will just mean more sulking from Brussels for a while.

[Angus]

Precisely.

My suspicion - and I have no tangible grounds for saying this (other than a sense of human and political nature and reading between the lines) - is that the EU establishment want a United States of Europe,

There are aspects of the LT which are fine and well but my reason for voting No is to slow down what I see as an inexorable drift towards a USE. All of the key aspects of the LT play to that theme and I utterly reject this tosh about "efficiency" - as if anything in the EU every came within a country mile of doing anything efficiently.

This is about power - a more united EU would be, in essence, a new SuperPower and could compete with the US economically and (albeit hihgly unlikely and a hundred years off) militarily.

I support the EU as is but fail to see why we need "more" integration.

[sadloserkid]

When was that made a rule? Should we never be allowed have a referendum on abortion in the history of the state again in this instance

So are we going to have a third referendum if it passes this time? Just to be super dooper democratic about it? :rolleyes: Best of three and what not? Obviously having two referendums on any subject in such a short period of time is showing a minimum of respect for your electorate whatever way people chose to spin it.

[Dodge]

I've no bother with any referendums (referenda?) being re-run if less than, say, 70% of the voting populace actually vote. Result could be appealed by 100,000 signatures of a majority of TDs

I love the way No campaigners are saying that its undemocratic to have another democratic vote. Plenty of arguments to not have another vote (time, money etc) but democracy can't be one




This is about power - a more united EU would be, in essence, a new SuperPower and could compete with the US economically and (albeit hihgly unlikely and a hundred years off) militarily

Wow, thats wildly speculative

[dahamsta]

My suspicion - and I have no tangible grounds for saying this (other than a sense of human and political nature and reading between the lines) - is that the EU establishment want a United States of Europe,Of course they do, who wouldn't want the successes of the USA up until recently? I don't have a problem with that either. The problem is that the eurocrats want a USE where they have all the power and the states have none. They're power mad and they need to be told to bugger off.


I've no bother with any referendums (referenda?) being re-run if less than, say, 70% of the voting populace actually vote. Result could be appealed by 100,000 signatures of a majority of TDsAt least not we're having a reasonable debate about reruns, instead of the repetitive tosspot we had last week.

I don't believe reruns are fair or logical within short periods of time, with 5 years reruns being an absolute minimum acceptable for me. 10 years may be too long, perhaps middle ground of 7 or 8 years might be best. Obviously an extenuating circumstances provision should be made, but loopholes would need to be watched for.

I don't believe voter turnout should be a factor, if only because we could end up in an endless loop. If voter turnout is a factor - and it is - make it mandatory; retaining the option to spoil.

I do believe strongly in recall election, and I think it's a shame we don't have it in Ireland; even the UK has provisions for it, although it doesn't seem to be taken advantage of.

adam

[Sheridan]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8152099.stm

A vote for Lisbon is a vote for Blair!

[Angus]

I do believe strongly in recall election, and I think it's a shame we don't have it in Ireland; even the UK has provisions for it, although it doesn't seem to be taken advantage of.

adam

Agree - the US, on paper, actually has the best system, with recall powers, state by state elections and referendums, national elections every 2 years and a robust set opf checks and balances.

Unfortunately it has been utterly corrupted by individuals and the duopoly, but on paper their system is as good as it could possibly get. Doesn't work out that way, of course.

Lisbon is a fraud - it is a EU constitution by any other name and while its implementation would be relatively benign in the short term it is fundamentally a path to a USE and for that reason I'm Out (Angus the Dragon)

[dahamsta]

Couldn't agree with you there Angus, apart from recalls I think the US system is a monstrosity. Completely aside from the idiotic punchcards and even more idiotic Windows boxes, the first-past-the-post system is inherently corruptable. (Of course people are corrupt, not systems, but the system makes it easy for them.) PR-STV is simply the best system, on paper and in practice. We just need to enhance it's use with recalls imho.

[mypost]

This is about power - a more united EU would be, in essence, a new SuperPower and could compete with the US economically and (albeit hihgly unlikely and a hundred years off) militarily.

I support the EU as is but fail to see why we need "more" integration.

Eurocorps, made up of soldiers from a number of EU countries, were taking part in a ceremony in Strasbourg on Monday, in order to raise the European flag over the Parliament, followed by the EU's anthem, at the Parliament's first session since the elections.

Looks all innocent, but one of the few changes between the two documents was the idea of dropping all EU symbols, to attempt to protect national identities.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/5819155/Federalists-accused-of-hijacking-European-Parliament-opening.html

[Mr A]

What is wrong with European symbols? or the Eurocorps for that matter?

The fact that they annoy the Telegraph and UKIP are a major plus point to me :)

[Dodge]

Love the way mypost is using a British newspaper to help highlight how Irish identity should be protected...

[Angus]

What is wrong with European symbols? or the Eurocorps for that matter?

The fact that they annoy the Telegraph and UKIP are a major plus point to me :)

Nothing wrong, so long as I can meet one single person who voted for them.


Couldn't agree with you there Angus, apart from recalls I think the US system is a monstrosity. Completely aside from the idiotic punchcards and even more idiotic Windows boxes, the first-past-the-post system is inherently corruptable. (Of course people are corrupt, not systems, but the system makes it easy for them.) PR-STV is simply the best system, on paper and in practice. We just need to enhance it's use with recalls imho.

I may have said it badly but where I was going that as a system written down on a page, it is close to perfect. Its execution, implementation and reality is utterly corrupt

[mypost]

Love the way mypost is using a British newspaper to help highlight how Irish identity should be protected...

The UK, as Ireland, is an independent nation. Nothing wrong with them looking to remain that way.

A bit different from an Irish newspaper:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0717/breaking44.htm

[Mr A]

An interesting piece by John Bruton in the IT today: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0720/1224250945103.html

[dahamsta]

Sure Bruton is one of the biggest federalists going, he'd murder his own granny for a USE. And that "White Paper" isn't worth the paper it's written on.

[OneRedArmy]

The UK, as Ireland, is an independent nation. Nothing wrong with them looking to remain that way.

A bit different from an Irish newspaper:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0717/breaking44.htmYet again you bandy about opinion as fact.

What on earth is "An independent nation"?! One's man independence was lost with the formation of the EEC whilst to another (me) we'll be no more or less independent pre or post Lisbon.

I'll again make the point that it's interesting the No campaign are being more and more influenced by the UK, where the debate has nothing to do with Lisbon, but everything to do with the whole concept of Europe.

The No campaign have certainly
moved on from the "we're pro-Europe actually" line they peddled last time around.

Wolves in sheeps clothing....

[Sheridan]

I'm in favour of a European Confederation and the total dismantling of the nation-state, but I'm utterly opposed to ceding any power to the anti-democratic and neo-liberal EU. It's bad enough trying to defend ourselves against the clowns in Leinster House with the inadequate democratic means we have at present.

[John83]

The No campaign have certainly moved on from the "we're pro-Europe actually" line they peddled last time around.
There are some vocal anti-European elements to the no vote. There's also a substantial proportion of it which is merely unhappy with the status quo in the EU. Sometimes, it can be hard to tell them apart using just a couple of sentences. I don't think the proportion has changed any.

[ped_ped]

Yes, obviously there are some anti-EU types in the anti-Lisbon campaign but to brand all No-campaigners as anti-EU is like branding all opposition party voters as anti-Ireland. Close-minded.

Anyway I'm against Lisbon, as I can't see it doing any considerable good for the country and at the same time, I'd be very suss about giving more law-making power to a body that have shown 0 through their steamrolling of the first No-vote - that they simply don't care what we think.

[mypost]

A Banker blames the people for the banking crisis. :D:rolleyes:


The general public played a role as well, through participation in the property bubble and becoming “amateur landlords” and by voting against the Lisbon Treaty.

“The very public rejection of Lisbon by a number of media personalities and public commentators in some instances was evidence itself of a sort of hubris and pride to which the nation had in some way fallen victim. That mistake must not be repeated in October.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0721/1224250995433.html

The crisis unfolded because the world banking system is inter-connected. Once it collapses in one country, it's a domino-effect. Voting against Lisbon is not a mistake, and it is not responsible for the current banking situation.

[eamo1]

The E.U has been the greatest peace process in the world,that was one of its original aims,to not have another world war.It has done that and more so there is many good points to the E.U.However there has to be controls and limits on its powers.So i like the E.U BUT im voting NO as i think a better deal can be reached for the benefit of everyone.A better deal is different then the "guarantees" we have been given which are NOT legally binding.

[mypost]

Peter Sutherland's rather predictable view. :o


THE GOVERNMENT should be able to spend exchequer funding on a campaign to encourage people to back changes it proposes to the Constitution, former EU commissioner, Peter Sutherland has said.

“This seems to be an unwarranted interference with the government of the country,” Mr Sutherland told the Institute of European Affairs during a speech on the October Lisbon Treaty referendum.

Politicians in favour of constitutional change were entitled to persuade the public to adopt a proposal “individually as private citizens or collectively as members of a political party or of the government”, the judge had said.

The 2008 Lisbon referendum had had “serious negative effects” on Ireland’s image: “Few could understand what we had done and who could blame them?”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0725/1224251304912.html

When there are riots rather than flowers given to Ireland's embassies, and Irish businesses and pubs are attacked by angry mobs across Europe, then I'll agree that Ireland's image has had "serious negative effects".

Until such time, Mr Sutherland is a tired old (ex-GATT secretary) politician who still believes that the EU is the best thing since the wheel was invented, and that anyone who isn't eternally committed to it is a waste of time. The serious negative effects applies to the political class rather than the social class.

[SMorgan]

We keep hearing the yes side admit that they got things badly wrong last time and that things will be so different this time. Yet when they start to present their case it appears that this campaign will be seemless from the last. Here we have Sutherland going on about No lies while at the same time presenting the protocals as having the same status as the Treaty itself and again presenting the biggest lie of all and that is the anybody that votes No is anti European. Why isn't Sutherland calling on the media to edit out Yes lies?

[OneRedArmy]

If you can't beat them, join them.

I'm not sure why the Yes side should tell the truth (other than moral obligation) when lying served the No side so well last time.

Lets be honest, it's likely that most of the electorate won't go into this referendum knowing much more than they did last time. Therefore spinning sensationalist yarns that engender fear is the best way to secure their vote.

[dahamsta]

The Yes side isn't "joining" anyone, they lied as much if not more than the No side last time around; the only difference being their failure despite this.

A novel approach I know, but perhaps if everyone told the truth people might be able to decide for themselves. It's this thing called democracy...

[mypost]

If you can't beat them, join them.

I'm not sure why the Yes side should tell the truth (other than moral obligation) when lying served the No side so well last time.

As a hardline No voter, I didn't lie on the loss of a commissioner. The commissioner issue is still as valid now as it was then. I didn't lie on the slashing of our voting weights. And I didn't lie on the Presidency issue.

The Presidency is non-negotiable as far as I'm concerned. I can't vote for a treaty that proposes one person, rather than rotating states, to be nominated as head of the EU, just to please the Yanks and the Ruskis. The bloke won't even have to be elected. At best, it tears up the current Presidency arrangements where we have the opportunity to set the agenda during our turn to hold it, with full autonomy to take decisions and represent the Union. At worst, it is a dangerous experiment, that could trigger war in the EU down the line. Europe's history has seen many wars triggered by elites holding too much power and abusing it against their own people and others. Such a position wasn't part of the Nice Treaty, and it would have to be dropped if I was to consider voting for a treaty in the future.

[Mr A]

The loss of a commissioner (some of the time) was one of the biggest red herrings of them all. They're not allowed to represent their own countries interests anyway! Now we're going to be stuck with too many of them :(

[dahamsta]

TDs are supposed to be the same way. I don't think anyone has mentioned it to Jackie Healy-Rae. Or Micky Martin. Or Bertie Ahern. Or... any of them.

[Poor Student]

The loss of a commissioner (some of the time) was one of the biggest red herrings of them all. They're not allowed to represent their own countries interests anyway! Now we're going to be stuck with too many of them :(

This has been pointed out numerous times in the thread. Not only that, but the commissionerships were going to be rotated on equal terms between all states.

Ireland losing more voting power is another red herring. Our already miniscule vote would be slightly reduced in order to refine the voting system and have it reflect population size more accurately.

The above two points are deliberately exaggerated and contorted to obfuscate the matter.

[mypost]

Ireland losing more voting power is another red herring. Our already miniscule vote would be slightly reduced in order to refine the voting system and have it reflect population size more accurately.

So if it's slightly reduced, it means even less power than what we already have. It's not mine, nor anyone else's fault that this country can only hold 4 million people, (tens of thousands from bigger states) and we shouldn't be punished for it.

IBEC (http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/84-chief-executives-believe-lisbon-rejection-damaged-countrys-international-reputation-97351.html)

Business leaders like political leaders see what's right for them, rather than what's right for the country.

[Mr A]

So despite the expansion of the EU we should still have the same voting rights? What if the existing members had taken the same attitude when we joined?

[mypost]

So despite the expansion of the EU we should still have the same voting rights?

Yes


What if the existing members had taken the same attitude when we joined?

Their problem.

It's the responsibilty of the Irish government to get the best EU deal for us, as Spain and Poland did during the negotiations, not lie down and merely take what was on offer. If that annoys other states, that's fine. An Irish PM is firstly responsible to his people, not other EU leaders.

[OneRedArmy]

It's the responsibilty of the Irish government to get the best EU deal for us,
1) More opinion stated as fact. Any references to support this?
2) Whats best in the short-term is very different to whats good in the long-term

Also, life isn't about binary options. Gains in one area can result in bigger loses elsewhere.

[mypost]

1) More opinion stated as fact. Any references to support this?

..


An Irish PM is firstly responsible to his people, not other EU leaders.

:o

[Mr A]

So given that no country would ever join on that basis, the EU/EEC should never have expanded whatsoever?

[OneRedArmy]

..



:oBeing responsible to the people of Ireland isn't the same as getting the best deal for Ireland.

As Mr. A has pointed out, nothing would ever get done if everyone suited themselves.

[dahamsta]

I was quite happy with the EU as it stood. If "enlargement", as they like to call it, really was necessary then well and good, but I can't think of a valid reason for taking it to the level it has, apart from the obvious. Let's be honest, it's just a different type of imperialism -- the gung-ho eurocrats might not be taking these territories by force, but their need for more and more and more is exactly the same as the Romans, the Ottomans, etc.

Children is another good comparison. Want Want Want.

adam

[Mr A]

For one thing I do not accept that it's a form of imperialism- but even if it is, it has generally brought peace and prosperity to its members while forcing them to put a lot of stuff like human rights relatively straight to join so why not keep expanding?

The question 'what have the Romans ever done for us?' spring to mind!

[mypost]

For one thing I do not accept that it's a form of imperialism- but even if it is, it has generally brought peace and prosperity to its members while forcing them to put a lot of stuff like human rights relatively straight to join so why not keep expanding?

What the EU has done is not that relevant to the Lisbon question. This is about the future direction and governance of the EU. Instead of everyone co-operating on the basis of equality, this is France and Germany's attempt to control the rest of Europe. And I don't see everyone else taking it very well, when the decisions are implemented.

[Mr A]

What the EU has done is not that relevant to the Lisbon question. This is about the future direction and governance of the EU. Instead of everyone co-operating on the basis of equality, this is France and Germany's attempt to control the rest of Europe. And I don't see everyone else taking it very well, when the decisions are implemented.

In fairness, even if what you say is true it beats the crap out of their previous attempts to control the whole of Europe!

[OneRedArmy]

What the EU has done is not that relevant to the Lisbon question. Lost.
For.
Words.

[dahamsta]

The question 'what have the Romans ever done for us?' spring to mind!That's a fair point, but by the same token some administrations have done well by society, and then strayed. I don't want to pick the obvious one for fear of invoking Godwin, but a more current example like Chavez serves just as well -- if ever there was an administration on a knife edge of going the wrong way, it's Chavez. Now I wouldn't go as far as to say the EU is at that level yet, but their behaviour of late - particularly since this damned constitution reared it's ugly head - has been vaguely Early Dictatorial and eminently Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda.

Oops, there I've gone and done it anyway...

adam

[mypost]

Lost.
For.
Words.

:confused:

[OneRedArmy]

That's a fair point, but by the same token some administrations have done well by society, and then strayed. I don't want to pick the obvious one for fear of invoking Godwin, but a more current example like Chavez serves just as well -- if ever there was an administration on a knife edge of going the wrong way, it's Chavez. Now I wouldn't go as far as to say the EU is at that level yet, but their behaviour of late - particularly since this damned constitution reared it's ugly head - has been vaguely Early Dictatorial and eminently Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda.

Oops, there I've gone and done it anyway...

adamAdministrations that stray generally have an army behind them to back up their crazy schemes.

The EU has a putative rapid reaction force, that still reports through it's own national chain of command.

[ped_ped]

Lost.
For.
Words.

Explain, please?

[Dodge]

Explain, please?

It just means he speechless.

Without speech.

Speech is nowhere to be found...