Lisbon Treaty

[osarusan]

What part is not true. The Irish people rejected the Nice Treaty and after a government campaign of scaremongering and doomsday scenarios the VERY SAME treaty was put to the Irish people again and they (I dont use we here because I voted no both times) accepted it. that is documented fact so I don't know how many times I have to say it before you accept it as such


The Irish government, having obtained the Seville Declaration on Ireland's policy of military neutrality from the European Council, decided to have another referendum on the Treaty of Nice on Saturday, 19 October 2002. Two significant qualifications were included in the second proposed amendment, one requiring the consent of the Dáil for "enhanced cooperation" under the treaty, and another preventing Ireland from joining any EU common defence policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nice

[pete]

I can't defend FF running the Nice Treaty referendum twice but lets face it the Irish electorate did not care as no evidence any great numbers voted against FF because of that. Nice has been good for Ireland & the EU so lucky we passed it.

[Macy]

I can't defend FF running the Nice Treaty referendum twice but lets face it the Irish electorate did not care as no evidence any great numbers voted against FF because of that. Nice has been good for Ireland & the EU so lucky we passed it.
Nice 1 forced the Government to get express committments on the issues people were concerned about. If a no vote this time does the same, then Lisbon 2 will probably pass too.

[pete]

Nice 1 forced the Government to get express committments on the issues people were concerned about. If a no vote this time does the same, then Lisbon 2 will probably pass too.

Done my Wikipedia research & you are correct. Nice 2 seemed to be about implementing neutrality guarantees in Irish law so the actual Treaty itself did not change.

Is there a single issue that could be changed to get a Lisbon 2 passed? :confused:

[Block G Raptor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nice

I stand corrected, the old memory is not what it used to be. Still stand over my comment that goverment has no mandate to tell the electorate that they voted wrongly. Also just as a point of interest does anyone find it strange that a democratically elected government should actively try to swing the outcome of a referendum, should it not be the governments job to ensure that the electorate know how the treaty benefits/inhibits the nation and then leave it up to the electorate to decide

[GavinZac]

I stand corrected, the old memory is not what it used to be.If you don't actually know what you're talking about, could you try not to bleat it over and over again despite being repeatedly told that it's false?
Still stand over my comment that goverment has no mandate to tell the electorate that they voted wrongly. Also just as a point of interest does anyone find it strange that a democratically elected government should actively try to swing the outcome of a referendum, should it not be the governments job to ensure that the electorate know how the treaty benefits/inhibits the nation and then leave it up to the electorate to decideEr, no? Fianna Fail represent a political party that were elected with a series of policies and given a mandate to make decisions for the greater good of the Republic of Ireland. They aren't supposed to be neutral on things like referendums; especially when concerned with things they are involved in i.e. sending ministers to Europe. The people who elected them gave them the power with all the trust that is implied in doing so. If they screwed us over, they'd be signing their own P45s. Which leads me to...

Germany, Italy, and Spain all ratified it through parliament, where the outcome is rigged. France and the UK, won't put it to referendums either, as the only way they'll get it through is by denying the public they represent the chance to vote on it. "EU Democracy?? You're having a laugh."Come on then, answer me. If its only good for our politicians, how is it denuding them of power? If its only good for the top 5 countries, why were 2 of them the ones to publicly state it would not pass, referendum or not? The Public elects its politicians. If a politician forced through something which the public did not like, they'd be out on their arses, either within a week or at election time. Whats the point? Whats in it for a politician to force this through, if it strips them of power before dumping them out after the electorate realise they've done such a horrible deal (which we're told time and time again will happen, but wouldn't you know it, the country is still relatively wealthy and FF still relatively well supported. Of course none of the other scare tactics came true, like EU armies and military escalation and such. Most people when they're 'betting' would take a look at the form.)

[mypost]

Fianna Fail represent a political party that were elected with a series of policies and given a mandate to make decisions for the greater good of the Republic of Ireland. They aren't supposed to be neutral on things like referendums; especially when concerned with things they are involved in i.e. sending ministers to Europe. The people who elected them gave them the power with all the trust that is implied in doing so. If they screwed us over, they'd be signing their own P45s.

Can you tell us how exactly this refers to the constitution?? :confused: If you vote FF, you vote for the Yes side, if you vote for FG, you vote for the yes side, if you vote for the PD's, you vote for the yes side, if you vote for Labour, you vote for the yes side. If you vote for the Greens, you vote for the no side, unless they're with FF in power, which they are, i.e., there is no choice but to vote for one of the "yes" side parties. So none of them can be voted out due to their stance on the constitution. When people vote at election time, as has been explained before, they vote on 10's of factors, I won't take the trouble to write them out again.


If its only good for our politicians, how is it denuding them of power?

The public lose power, the politicians keep it. They negotiated this joke, agreed, signed, and ratified it through their own parliaments. Was the public consulted?? No. Were they allowed to have a referendum on it?? No. We are, by our constitution requirements only, do you think we would have one, if it wasn't?? No.


wouldn't you know it, the country is still relatively wealthy and FF still relatively well supported.

Irrelevant. People should consider the referendum's issues before casting their vote, not what party they usually vote for. If anything, the country is getting poorer, with wage freezes in the pipeline, and job losses an everyday occurrence.


Of course none of the other scare tactics came true, like EU armies and military escalation and such.

Only 15 countries have ratified it yet. When they all do, then the changes will come into effect.

[BohsPartisan]

Of the other suggestions from campaigners the Lisbon Treaty also does not:
- privatise the health service (would the French & other countries with 100% public health system approve this?)
- change Neutrality
- introduce abortion
- change our sovereignty
- create a EU army

Virtually all the changes relate to voting rights.


It includes plenty on what it calls "liberalisation of services" and "removing barriers to competition". This in effect means privatisation. (The guy who drafted the original EU constitution admitted that this version was deliberately obscure for some of these reasons (see today's Irish times - hidden in an opinion piece). As for would the French agree to privatising health - thats why they don't get to vote on it this tme around. Sarkozy certainly has designs on doing this and using the provisions in the treaty (self admitted) to push for an EU army.

http://www.caeuc.org/files/HealthLib.pdf

[dahamsta]

GavinZac, this is your final warning: lose the attitude or lose posting privileges in here.

adam

[Poor Student]

It involves the automatic loss to the right of a commissioner, voting rights seriously affected, and the loss of the right to hold the EU Presidency. In short, there is nothing on offer to benefit citizens, unless they're politicians.

All countries are affected equally by the "loss" of a commissioner. Each country will have a commissioner for two out of every three terms. A commissioner is supposed to act in the interests of the Union and not just their member state so it's no particular problem.

You say "voting rights seriously effected". So what? Who says that the voting structure is ok the way it is? It's disproprtionately weighted in favour of smaller countries. To be honest the whole thing has been blown out of proportion. There will be two voting criteria to pass legislation with the Council, 55% of member states and they must represent at least 65% of the Union's population. The first criteria is the most important and the second one is very sensible and that's in areas where QMV is required, there are of course key areas where unanimity is required. There's some very disingenous nonsense being put around like "Ireland's voting power will be halved". Also, four countries can block a proposal. Big countries won't be able to just barge stuff through, that's assuming they're even all acting in unison and on the same page.

Also, the directly elected European Parliament is receiving futher empowerment on decision making as a result of the Lisbon Treaty.

Loss of the right to hold the EU Presidency? The whole six month rotating process isn't necessary. To have a six month rotating process with 27 and expanding members is a bit of a joke. Holding the Presidency for Slovenia put quite a strain on things for example. Personally, I feel it's more stable and sensible to elect the President to chair the council, it'll also put a more public face on the coucil.


As the only electorate permitted to vote on it, that's the reality that Irish and European citizens face should our electorate obey Cowen/Kenny/Harney/Gilmore, and the Unions with vested interests next week.

Elected goverments have ratified the treaty. As Gavin Zac explained, the politicians are elected with mandates to carry out whatever defined matters in each state. If you want direct democracy where you have your personal say in every matter you're in the wrong millenium. It's not practical or plausible.

[Bald Student]

A
Loss of the right to hold the EU Presidency? The whole six month rotating process isn't necessary. To have a six month rotating process with 27 and expanding members is a bit of a joke. Holding the Presidency for Slovenia put quite a strain on things for example. Personally, I feel it's more stable and sensible to elect the President to chair the council, it'll also put a more public face on the coucil.I'm not certain but I think I read that there'll still be the six month presidency but that the previous country and the next country to get it will help out the current president. It'll mean that there's less strain on the smaller countries and more continuity during the changeovers.

[mypost]

All countries are affected equally by the "loss" of a commissioner. Each country will have a commissioner for two out of every three terms. A commissioner is supposed to act in the interests of the Union and not just their member state so it's no particular problem.

Wrong.

While every country will lose a commissioner, we have to zoom in on Ireland's. The loss of a commissioner for any period, let alone a full EU election term, means that other countries will decide policies for us during that term, with no Irish voice at the table.


You say "voting rights seriously effected". So what? Who says that the voting structure is ok the way it is? It's disproprtionately weighted in favour of smaller countries. To be honest the whole thing has been blown out of proportion. There will be two voting criteria to pass legislation with the Council, 55% of member states and they must represent at least 65% of the Union's population.

How many countries constitute the 55%/65% waffle?? Who are they?? How will it be affected on the acceptance of new states?? :confused:

If anything, the voting structure weighted in favour of smaller countries is fair, when you think there are 22 of them in the Union. There is nothing wrong with the current voting structure imo.


Loss of the right to hold the EU Presidency? The whole six month rotating process isn't necessary. To have a six month rotating process with 27 and expanding members is a bit of a joke. Holding the Presidency for Slovenia put quite a strain on things for example. Personally, I feel it's more stable and sensible to elect the President to chair the council, it'll also put a more public face on the coucil.

Explain why the Bold bit is needed.

We have held the Presidency several times. Last time was described as a success. Politically, under current legislation, we have the same entitlement as Germany and France and the other states to hold it, for the same period.

In football, the fixture list for our WC '06 qualifiers was held in Dublin, as a direct result of our holding of the Presidency at the time, which resulted in a more favourable fixture list.


Elected goverments have ratified the treaty. As Gavin Zac explained, the politicians are elected with mandates to carry out whatever defined matters in each state. If you want direct democracy where you have your personal say in every matter you're in the wrong millenium. It's not practical or plausible.

Democracy is the right to have a say on issues, no matter how small it is, or how insignificant it looks. It's not perfect, but it's the best system of rule there is. However, this treaty is anything but democratic. 1 country of 27 will hold a referendum, the national electorates elected their governments on their own domestic affairs, not EU agendas. This is a treaty/constitution by politicians for politicians, the concerns of the people they represent and are affected by it, carry no weight. There is nothing in this treaty to benefit EU citizens.


I'm not certain but I think I read that there'll still be the six month presidency but that the previous country and the next country to get it will help out the current president. It'll mean that there's less strain on the smaller countries and more continuity during the changeovers.

Sorry...


The post, with a 30-month term that can be extended to five years, is to replace a cumbersome system by which European Union leaders and nations rotate holding the presidency every six months.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/20/europe/20europe.php

The polls out tonight, finally look encouraging for the no side. But nobody is taking anything for granted, as we wait to see how many people will be "persuaded" by the political parties scaremongering tactics over the next week.

[Bald Student]

Sorry...
No need for anyone to be sorry, these are complicated things. I looked it up and we're both half right. The meetings of ministers are still be chaired by each country for 6 months but the meetings of prime ministers will be chaired by the new person.

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_gov.html


Proposed Changes – Council (of Ministers)

Presidency of the Council

The present six month rotating Presidency will continue for all Councils except the Foreign Affairs Council which will be chaired by the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.


Proposed Changes - European Council (Heads of Government)

The European Council is chaired at present on a rotating basis by the head of government or state of the Member State holding the six month EU Presidency. The Treaty provides for a new post of President of the European Council. The President would be elected (by qualified majority) by the European Council for two and a half years and could be re-elected once for a similar term. The President would chair and co-ordinate the European Council’s work.

[A face]

Alright people, Lisbon Treaty, we are getting to the business end of things now .... its as clear as mud at this stage. What way are you voting and why?

Make three reasoned (and substantiated) points to back up you decision. No debate (other threads for that)

No poll, just points

[BohsPartisan]

Alright people, Lisbon Treaty, we are getting to the business end of things now .... its as clear as mud at this stage. What way are you voting and why?

Make three reasoned (and substantiated) points to back up you decision. No debate (other threads for that)

No poll, just points

No because:
1. It is undemocratic - no one else gets to vote.
2. It is a neoliberal treaty - there are passages about increased competition in areas that have hitherto been seen as public services.
3. It is gobbledygook on purpose so people don't know whats in it.

[pete]

Loss of the right to hold the EU Presidency? The whole six month rotating process isn't necessary. To have a six month rotating process with 27 and expanding members is a bit of a joke. Holding the Presidency for Slovenia put quite a strain on things for example. Personally, I feel it's more stable and sensible to elect the President to chair the council, it'll also put a more public face on the council.


With 27 members Ireland would only get the Presidency once every 13 years so as you say we lose nothing. Up to now countries tried to complete EU projects within 6 months which has not been possible which lead to them being passed on from country to country so very inefficient.



Elected goverments have ratified the treaty. As Gavin Zac explained, the politicians are elected with mandates to carry out whatever defined matters in each state. If you want direct democracy where you have your personal say in every matter you're in the wrong millenium. It's not practical or plausible.

I agree. I don't think the undemocratic argument carrys much weigh. Politicians pass laws every day of the week (or once a month in Ireland) & the public don't get a chance to have a direct say. Britain is probably not having a referendum as they don't have a constitution. Ireland was the only country to have referendums for Nice. Maastricht scraped through & without we would not have had the Euro.

[mypost]

No need for anyone to be sorry, these are complicated things. I looked it up and we're both half right.

Well, it's a highly technical and complicated document. :)


The meetings of ministers are still be chaired by each country for 6 months but the meetings of prime ministers will be chaired by the new person.

I interpret the above, as the person, (and associated nation) holding the EU Presidency. They will be elected to co-ordinate the council's work, and the ministers at meetings will still be answerable to the President, during his (their) long term of office.


With 27 members Ireland would only get the Presidency once every 13 years so as you say we lose nothing. Up to now countries tried to complete EU projects within 6 months which has not been possible which lead to them being passed on from country to country so very inefficient.

What's the hurry?? Will there be a terrorist attack on Malta tomorrow if things are not agreed??

They got the constitution/treaty agreed, not at a time that suited the big countries, but when it suited everyone. That's why we have 27 and more countries. Everyone has a say, and laws/bills are passed when they suit states, not by the EU's deadlines.


I agree. I don't think the undemocratic argument carrys much weigh. Politicians pass laws every day of the week (or once a month in Ireland) & the public don't get a chance to have a direct say. Britain is probably not having a referendum as they don't have a constitution.

Britain chose not to have a referendum second time around. An Irish TD is answerable to his electorate, and may in extreme cases, be dismissed. When was an EU politician last dismissed from Brussels?? :confused: Even Dana lasted her full 5 years. :)

[Dodge]

2. It is a neoliberal treaty...
3. It is gobbledygook on purpose so people don't know whats in it.
He hee hee

[Block G Raptor]

NO!
1. As BP says it's pretty tough to understand exactly what is in it, as John Lennon once famously said "If in Doubt F**K IT"
2. I have yet to hear 1 politician in the Yes camp give a straight answer to the Question "In what way will Ireland benefit from the Lisbon treaty?", Alls I've heard in response to that question is that the EU has been good for Ireland and we should be good Europeans blah blah
3. I am a strong believer in Irish Sovereignty (I make no apologies for this) and really really do not want to see that Sovereignty diluted unless their are clearly defined benefits to all people on the Island, I can't list one benefit of the Lisbon treaty to the ordinary joe on the street

[jebus]

Yes

1. I'm in favour of taking some of the decision making away from Dublin
2. I'm in favour of the EU having a common defence policy
3. I don't trust Libertas, Sinn Fein or the Catholic Church

[anto1208]

YES

1. The less power our goverment has the better
2. Europe and the EU arent out the get us and con us like the NO campain seems to be suggesting they will work in everyones best interest.
3. Sinn Fein said vote No thats a good enough reason for me to vote yes
4. Voting no because you dont understand something is stupid if you dont know what it does dont vote ! Or find out what it does then make up your mind i read the little book sent out to everyone and im happy to vote yes.

[Block G Raptor]

YES
i read the little book sent out to everyone and im happy to vote yes.

A little book that neither I nor my parents house received

[Only1Rovers]

When put to the test, twice the constitution was shot down by founding members of the European Union, The French and Dutch, so the argument that we should be good Europeans and vote yes does not hold water.

The original author of the Treaty, Valery Giscard d'Estaing has stated, "Public opinion will not be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly....All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way".

Somewhat worrying.

Corporation tax WILL be harmonized/standardised which will mean a significant raise in taxes here (in Ireland) to complement taxation in Germany and France. Ireland's economic boom has been substantially due to our low corporate tax rate of 12.5%. France and Germany's corporate tax is twice ours of 34.4% and 38.6% respectfully.

I'm no fan of Sinn Fein and don't know the background to Libertas but I will be voting no.

However, if I was promised a new playing surface in the Showgrounds and we could keep Faz I would vote YES YES YES!

Until then....

[superfrank]

A little book that neither I nor my parents house received
Or mine.

Yes
1. It makes the voting system in Europe more democratic for all nations.
2. The common tax base will equalise options for multi-nationals in Europe.
3. The EU defence force.

[pete]

Yes.
- More efficient decision making & democratic structure in Europe.
- I don't agree with SF, Libertas, Racist or Religions Nutjob groups.
- Can find anything in the Treaty I disagree with.

[anto1208]

At a glance it seems any one that has read up on it is voting YES and the ones that are going on the sound bites are voting NO.

Im still hearing people saying things like it will bring Abortion , the Death penalty in here , we would lose our Nutrality ( thats debatable at the moment anyway) and Veto etc etc All released by the NO campain and all clearly wrong.

[dahamsta]

How about all the politicians that are recommending a Yes, but haven't actually read it, how would you categorise them? :rolleyes:

[micls]

How about all the politicians that are recommending a Yes, but haven't actually read it, how would you categorise them? :rolleyes:

As idiots. The same way Id class anyone who voted without reading up on it

[mypost]

As idiots. The same way Id class anyone who voted without reading up on it

If the politicians haven't read the treaty, why should the electorate?? :confused: We still have to cast our vote on it regardless.

[jebus]

If the politicians haven't read the treaty, why should the electorate?? :confused: We still have to cast our vote on it regardless.

No you don't. The people I know that haven't read it aren't going to vote either way, that seems to be the sensible option to take if you haven't been swayed by the government's lack of knowledge or Libertas' spreading of lies

[mypost]

The people I know that haven't read it aren't going to vote either way, that seems to be the sensible option

Most people who won't vote, tend to be people with zero interest in politics. That applies to other referendums and elections as well.

[jebus]

Most people who won't vote, tend to be people with zero interest in politics. That applies to other referendums and elections as well.

Not in this case I think. A lot of people feel they are either being misled or misinformed by both sides of the debate and so don't want to cast a vote

[pete]

Best reason I heard so far to vote Yes is that we need a strong united Europe. Russia, China & India are gaining power & influence every year & like it or not reality dictates that we need to be part of a one group or the other.

We are a small country on the edge of Europe & we need the influence & power a united Europe provides. The Treaty makes it policy to create electricity inter-connectors across Europe & ensures the EU acts together to ensure energy security. As a country that more or less imports its entire energy needs & almost entirely dependent on fossil fuels in the medium terms this is vital to our interests. We can talk about recyclable energy sources but that won't happen overnight.

A No vote weakens the EU as it makes the decision process longer & more difficult with too manager veto rights & rotating Presidency,

[mypost]

we need a strong united Europe. Russia, China & India are gaining power & influence every year & like it or not reality dictates that we need to be part of a one group or the other.

In what?? Those countries have always had influence, dictatorship countries Russia and China are permanent UN Council members after all. They won't gain the same level of influence as France and Germany will under this. And it's France and Germany's influence that will affect us.


We are a small country on the edge of Europe & we need the influence & power a united Europe provides.

For what?? We are a small country, so are many in the EU.


A No vote makes the decision process longer with too manager veto rights & rotating Presidency,

That's a good thing.

[pete]

In what?? Those countries have always had influence, dictatorship countries Russia and China are permanent UN Council members after all. They won't gain the same level of influence as France and Germany will under this. And it's France and Germany's influence that will affect us.


China may always have had a UN security council seat but had little or no effective power as it was an economic back water. Energy security is going to a massive issue in the coming years & Europe needs to acts collectively.Europe gets a lot of gas from Russia & when our local supply runs out we will need to buy from them too. The Lisbon Treaty adds clause ensuring energy supply is an EU goal.

[lilywhite stu]

new opinion poll out today in the irish times No 35%, Yes 30%. thats outside the margin of error so I'd be fairly hopeful of the treaty being rejected. Realistically the turnout won't be 65% anyway so I'm reckoning on an even bigger gap than that poll would suggest. the bookies are still odds on for a yes so there's some value to be had on a no!

[micls]

If the politicians haven't read the treaty, why should the electorate?? :confused: We still have to cast our vote on it regardless.

With rights come responsibilities. Yes you have the right to vote on it, but its your responsibility to inform yourself so that you then make what you believe to be the best decision.

Anyone who votes without informing themselves doesnt deserve the right to vote, politicians included

[mypost]

China may always have had a UN security council seat but had little or no effective power as it was an economic back water.

Economics had little effect in UN Council meetings, the permanent members had a veto, and used it. The G8 meetings involved Russia, even when they hadn't two kopecs to rub together.


Europe gets a lot of gas from Russia & when our local supply runs out we will need to buy from them too.

As an island, it's unlikely to affect us very much.

[superfrank]

I genuinely believe that if people don't know which way to vote, they should go in and spoil their vote. It'll serve both sides right for scare-mongering.

[mypost]

I genuinely believe that if people don't know which way to vote, they should go in and spoil their vote. It'll serve both sides right for scare-mongering.

You accuse both sides of scaremongering, yet advocate a "Yes" vote?? :confused:

Meanwhile, more scaremongering from the "Yes" men:


"Jobs, jobs, it's all about jobs and about working to get jobs in the future."

http://home.eircom.net/content/unison/national/13003305?view=Eircomnet&cat=National

All about jobs. We're losing, not gaining jobs as it is.

Wonder if Michael Collins was worried about jobs here when he was fighting the British Army and the Civil War?? :confused:

[micls]

You accuse both sides of scaremongering, yet advocate a "Yes" vote?? :confused:


But you're advocating no despite obvious scaremongering from them. Whats the difference?

People need to ignore the scaremongering and go find out for yourself. Then at least when you decide Yes or No you'll have your own reasons to have done so.

[micls]

Meanwhile, more scaremongering from the "Yes" men:



http://home.eircom.net/content/unison/national/13003305?view=Eircomnet&cat=National

All about jobs. We're losing, not gaining jobs as it is.

Wonder if Michael Collins was worried about jobs here when he was fighting the British Army and the Civil War?? :confused:

The scaremongering from the yes side is never going to come near the scaremongering from the no side.

Forced abortion? Forced military service at 18?

[superfrank]

But you're advocating no despite obvious scaremongering from them. Whats the difference?

People need to ignore the scaremongering and go find out for yourself. Then at least when you decide Yes or No you'll have your own reasons to have done so.
Thank you, micls. I couldn't have put it better myself.

[mypost]

But you're advocating no despite obvious scaremongering from them. Whats the difference?

Difference is the above poster was suggesting there was scaremongering from both sides. Whereas the only voters accusing the No side of it, are those on the other side, as they have nothing to sell to their own voters.

[superfrank]

Difference is the above poster was suggesting there was scaremongering from both sides. Whereas the only voters accusing the No side of it, are those on the other side, as they have nothing to sell to their own voters.
I'm voting Yes because I've read up on the treaty and I see a lot of good in it. My choice hasn't been influenced by the scare-mongering of both sides.

[micls]

Difference is the above poster was suggesting there was scaremongering from both sides. Whereas the only voters accusing the No side of it, are those on the other side, as they have nothing to sell to their own voters.

I dont understand that post at all.

The only ones accusing the no voters of it are those on the other side? What does that mean. I know people voting no who think the scaremongering on the no side is ridiculous.

Do you disagree that both sides are scare-mongering?

[mypost]

Do you disagree that both sides are scare-mongering?

Yes.

After all, if they're merely cosmetic changes in the Union, what's the fuss about?? :confused:

[micls]

Yes.

After all, if they're merely cosmetic changes in the Union, what's the fuss about?? :confused:

Yes, you dont think theres any scaremongering? Ok......either you're being sarcastic( if so Im completely missing whatever point youre trying to make) or you live in a cave..

[mypost]

Yes, you dont think theres any scaremongering? Ok.

Grand.

The No side are highlighting the reality of what we're voting on, after the groups campaigning went to actually sit down and go through the laborious process of reading the EU treaty from cover to cover, something that theTaoiseach and EU Commissioner have openly admitted to not doing.

The Yes camp's campaign amounts to fantasising, that


Losing our commissioner for a full EU term, and our voting weights halved is not detrimental to Ireland.

That we will lose influence in Europe, if we send the Treaty back to Brussels unratified

That we need to be part of a strong Europe to challenge other countries.

That we need to say yes to attract foreign investment, at a time when companies are already closing plants and moving them overseas, or else overlooking us completely. This issue will continue regardless of what outcome there is next week.
They are right on one thing however. The "Europe has been good to us" whine. Sure, even the No side acknowledge that. This referendum is about the future of the European Union, not the past. :rolleyes:

[micls]

Grand.

The No side are highlighting the reality of what we're voting on,


Are we voting on legalising abortion? Strange that, I must have missed that bit in it.