Lisbon Treaty

[eamo1]

IF your either a Nationalist,of a religious inclination,for workers rights,for keeping Irelands neutrality,for saving jobs in fishing and farming etc then plz VOTE NO.

[superfrank]

The No side are highlighting the reality of what we're voting on
No, they're not. There is nothing to do with abortion or euthanasia in this treaty, yet No campaigners would have you believe that there is. Just one of the many scare-mongering tactics employed by them.

Losing our commissioner for a full EU term, and our voting weights halved is not detrimental to Ireland.
It is detrimental but it's also democratic. Why should a country with 4m people think they should have as much say as a country like Germany who has c. 80m or even Portugal who has c. 10m? That is undemocratic.

That we will lose influence in Europe, if we send the Treaty back to Brussels unratified
That's a bit of scare-mongering from the Yes side. I don't believe it for a second.

That we need to be part of a strong Europe to challenge other countries.
It certainly gives us greater bargaining power if we organise fuel supplies (someone mentioned getting our oil from Russia) for 400m people rather than for 4m.

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.
A common tax-base will mean that all the Eastern EU countries won't be undercutting the Western ones in a bid to lure foreign investment. Income tax, corporation tax, VAT, etc. will all be the same across the EU and investment will go to the countries with better infrastructure, better educated populace and better standards of living i.e. the Western EU countries.

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:
More Yes scare-mongering but if people actually go and read the treaty they will know what it's about.

It's simple: don't listen to these lobby groups, just read the damned thing and make up your mind that way.

[Poor Student]

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.

Again, a commissioner does not represent a member state. They are nominated by a state but are obliged to act in the interest of the whole union and swear an oath to do so. Also, the commission's selection must be approved by the parliament and can also be sacked by them. Also, as you well know, any policies formulated by the commission must be voted on by the council and sometimes also the parliament.


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

Waffle? You do know it's more simplified that the current three tiered voting system? Also, you're ignoring that four countries can block any QMV decision.


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.

You're articifially creating this big five versus the rest divide. Does the likes of Poland with well over 30 million inhabitants count as a smaller country in your mind? There are countries of varying different sizes, not just really big or small. They'll each have a strong vote as single members and then secondly decided on the size of their population. The third "weighted votes" tier is unecessary.


Explain why the Bold bit is needed.

There's no harm in people being able to put a face on and conceptualise the Council a bit better just like the Commission President.


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.

Yeah, and France and Germany will be equally affected by the changes. What's your point?


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.

Er, what? How's this relevant?


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.

This has been explained to you infinitely. The structures of the other states mean that when people elect their governments they empower their politicians to make decisions in the areas of European affairs. Those electorates elected their goverment on domestic, European and other foreign affairs.

[BohsPartisan]

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.



You know where that line of thinking always ends.


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

Thats Coir saying that. They're Youth Defence in disguise. Mypost I'm sure is talking about the non certifiably insane part of the No campaign.

[mypost]

There is nothing to do with abortion or euthanasia in this treaty, yet No campaigners would have you believe that there is. Just one of the many scare-mongering tactics employed by them.

There are many reasons to vote No, but tbh, I don't care about abortion or euthanasia in this treaty, and I haven't brought it up in my arguments.


It is detrimental but it's also democratic. Why should a country with 4m people think they should have as much say as a country like Germany who has c. 80m or even Portugal who has c. 10m? That is undemocratic.

We are entitled to our say. It's not our fault there is such a population difference, and we shouldn't be punished for it.


It certainly gives us greater bargaining power if we organise fuel supplies (someone mentioned getting our oil from Russia) for 400m people rather than for 4m.

What bargaining power?? France and Germany will call the shots in this instance, and the other big 3, we'll just have to go along with it. This is where they will exert their power and influence.


a commissioner does not represent a member state. They are nominated by a state but are obliged to act in the interest of the whole union and swear an oath to do so. Also, the commission's selection must be approved by the parliament and can also be sacked by them. Also, as you well know, any policies formulated by the commission must be voted on by the council and sometimes also the parliament.

A commissioner isn't going to overlook something that's completely alien to his own state. If he knows that it will receive a negative reaction in his homeland, he will have it voted down. He's his own nationality first, then European, and he's not going to risk losing his seat at the next European elections, by allowing it to pass unopposed.

Some major policy or policies will come up during Ireland's absence of a commissioner that will affect this country. Having no commissioner and .8% of voting weights puts us in a very vulnerable position. That counts as surrender of sovereignty in my book, and we've spent 800 years of our history fighting foreign powers. We're not willing to give it up again.

In any case, this is one of the most important points which pushes my stance. As an EU member, we are entitled to a commissioner on point of principle, I am not willing to see it surrendered, for any period of office.


Also, you're ignoring that four countries can block any QMV decision.

That makes a mockery of QMV. Either there is QMV, or there isn't.


You're articifially creating this big five versus the rest divide. Does the likes of Poland with well over 30 million inhabitants count as a smaller country in your mind? There are countries of varying different sizes, not just really big or small. They'll each have a strong vote as single members and then secondly decided on the size of their population. The third "weighted votes" tier is unecessary.

This treaty was drawn up by D'Estaing (French), pushed by Chirac (French), Sarkosy (French), advocated by Prodi (Italian), and demanded by Merkel (German). They are the longest serving members of the Union with the biggest populations, who hold the biggest sway, and are the global face of the EU. Poland has been a member for 4 years, and counts as a "small" country. Bigger than others, but still small in the eyes of Europe.


There's no harm in people being able to put a face on and conceptualise the Council a bit better just like the Commission President.

But you haven't explained why we need it.


France and Germany will be equally affected by the changes. What's your point?

Obviously by QMV, with the most voting weights, the election for President will be a carve up for them. There's no equality in this instance.


The structures of the other states mean that when people elect their governments they empower their politicians to make decisions in the areas of European affairs. Those electorates elected their goverment on domestic, European and other foreign affairs.

How many people elected the current Dail on European issues, over domestic matters, e.g. economic, health, transport, crime, children's issues among others?? The European elections are next year, not last year.

[osarusan]

There are many reasons to vote No, but tbh, I don't care about abortion or euthanasia in this treaty, and I haven't brought it up in my arguments.

You may not have brought it up in your arguments, but others who support a 'no' not have brought it up.

On the previous page you disagreed with micls that there had been scare-mongering from both sides, saying that


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

The 'no' side is everybody who wants a 'no' vote, not just people who agree with your reasons.

Either this treaty is about abortion and euthanasia (which you just don't care about), or it isn't. If it's the latter, then to suggest that it is about euthanasia and abortion would be scare-mongering, would it not?

[mypost]

Either this treaty is about abortion and euthanasia, or it isn't. If it's the latter, then to suggest that it is about euthanasia and abortion would be scare-mongering, would it not?

Obviously those issues are big to you, and if they are, fair enough.

[superfrank]

We are entitled to our say. It's not our fault there is such a population difference, and we shouldn't be punished for it.
The big countries are entitled to their say as well. It's not their fault there is such a population difference and they shouldn't be punished for it either.

Ireland has more influence in the EU then it should for its size. The treaty won't fix this imbalance entirely but it will make it more democratic.

What bargaining power?? France and Germany will call the shots in this instance, and the other big 3, we'll just have to go along with it. This is where they will exert their power and influence.
It's called democracy. Every person gets a vote. You're whining on and on about the treaty being undemocratic but voting no is hypocritical on that point. The EU as it stands, is undemocratic.

I'm like a broken record at this stage.

[mypost]

The big countries are entitled to their say as well. It's not their fault there is such a population difference and they shouldn't be punished for it either.

Sods law really. This is an Irish referendum, and Irish citizens are imo, obliged to consider how this deal affects this country before considering how it affects others. We are voting on whether this deal represents what's best for Ireland, not on what's best for Cyprus, Poland, and Slovenia, etc.

[BohsPartisan]

The big countries are entitled to their say

No, the citizens of the big countries are entitled to their say and they aren't getting it! If the their governments are so interested in democracy then why was the French and Dutch rejection of this treaty in its previous guise ignored and why aren't they allowed vote on the amended version?

[superfrank]

No, the citizens of the big countries are entitled to their say and they aren't getting it! If the their governments are so interested in democracy then why was the French and Dutch rejection of this treaty in its previous guise ignored and why aren't they allowed vote on the amended version?
You're asking the wrong man. Why was the Nice Treaty voted on again here when it was rejected the first time?

The only answer I can give is that we can't do anything about the internal workings of separate country governments.

However, this treaty gives us a chance to amend the democratic imbalance in the EU and I'm going to avail of that.

[BohsPartisan]

However, this treaty gives us a chance to amend the democratic imbalance in the EU and I'm going to avail of that.

No it doesn't it will mean that France and Germany will be calling the shots. It means Sarkozy and Merkel's type making decisions on our behalf without us having any chance of voting them out. In essence it achieves everything Hitler, Napoleon and Caesar dreamed of only through deception and slight of hand instead of brute force.

[NeilMcD]

France and Germany have gone from having 2 Commissioners not too long ago to the fact that will not have one 5 out of every 15 years so not sure how France and Germany are trying to run the show, in many ways they have less power at EU level than they should.

Secondly what you said is OTT stuff that does nothing for the debate and only inflames it, something both sides are guilty of.

[Student Mullet]

In essence it achieves everything Hitler, Napoleon and Caesar dreamed of only through deception and slight of hand instead of brute force.

I'm quoting this for posterity.

[Da Real Rover]

For the past week we have been doing leafletting around the estates in Sligo.
It is very encouraging, not one person I have come across said they were voteing Yes. Its looking good up here anyway.

[osarusan]

Obviously those issues are big to you, and if they are, fair enough.

You haven't answered the question though.

Is this treaty about abortion and euthanasia, or is it not?

If not, then telling people is it would be scare-mongering, which is something you have denied the 'no' side have done.

(You could answer the question which is in bold)

[kingdom hoop]

(You could answer the question which is in bold)

Of course he could choose to ignore it either. Surely not though.....

[Poor Student]

That counts as surrender of sovereignty in my book, and we've spent 800 years of our history fighting foreign powers. We're not willing to give it up again.



It means Sarkozy and Merkel's type making decisions on our behalf without us having any chance of voting them out. In essence it achieves everything Hitler, Napoleon and Caesar dreamed of only through deception and slight of hand instead of brute force.

These two comments are indicitave of the hysterics and histrionics of the no campaign, particularly the one by BohsPartisan. Unbelievable.

Mypost,I'll reply to your other responses when I get time.

[BohsPartisan]

These two comments are indicitave of the hysterics and histrionics of the no campaign, particularly the one by BohsPartisan. Unbelievable.

Mypost,I'll reply to your other responses when I get time.

Ha.
Some arguments from the yes campaign. Not from people on here, but prominent national politicians -

"A no vote will result in chaos"
"We must not allow the holocaust to happen again"
"Investors will pull out of Ireland if we vote no"
"We will be a pariah state across Europe"
"Europe is at peace now, don't let that change"

Who is involved in histrionics and scaremongering?

The aim of uniting Europe under one ideology was held by the three mentioned dictators of whom I have differing opinions. The Lisbon treaty achieves that goal. We will effectively have Europe wide government with all but the unimportant local decisions being made in one place. We will havea common foreign policy and a common economic policy. If you think the people of Europe will have much input into that then you are terribly naive. Let me quote former French president Giscard d'Estaing - one of the main architects of the original version of the EU constitution on the lisbon treaty

"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly".

Does no one else think this is more than a bit sinister?

How about the words of Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign minister?

"The aim of this treaty is to be unreadable...It is a success."

As for my previous claims which were poo-poo'd about the neo-liberal economic implications of the treaty, lets hear from that renowned loony left wing organisation, the Irish Business and Employers Confederation (IBEC)

"The Lisbon Reform Treaty creates the legal basis for the liberalisation of services of general economic interest. A yes vote for the Lisbon Treaty crates the potential for increased opportunities for Irish business particularly in areas subject to increasing liberalisation such as Health, Education, Transport, Energy and the Environment"

[Student Mullet]

Who is involved in histrionics and scaremongering?
Quite clearly you are. Whether anyone else is as well is better judged by people who don't have planks of wood sticking out of their eyes.

[BohsPartisan]

Quite clearly you are.

Point to something I said that isn't fact. I backed my argument up with quotes form people who admit the treaty to be what it is.

[Student Mullet]

Point to something I said that isn't fact. I backed my argument up with quotes form people who admit the treaty to be what it is.

.....

In essence it achieves everything Hitler, Napoleon and Caesar dreamed of only through deception and slight of hand instead of brute force.

[BohsPartisan]

.....



"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly".



"The aim of this treaty is to be unreadable...It is a success."


If thats not "deception and slight of hand" what is?

[Student Mullet]

If thats not "deception and slight of hand" what is?

That doesn't quite justify the "achieves everything Hitler dreamed of" part of your argument.

[BohsPartisan]

That doesn't quite justify the "achieves everything Hitler dreamed of" part of your argument.

Which I explained in the long post I made on the last page.

[micls]

You may not have brought it up in your arguments, but others who support a 'no' not have brought it up.

On the previous page you disagreed with micls that there had been scare-mongering from both sides, saying that

The 'no' side is everybody who wants a 'no' vote, not just people who agree with your reasons.

Either this treaty is about abortion and euthanasia (which you just don't care about), or it isn't. If it's the latter, then to suggest that it is about euthanasia and abortion would be scare-mongering, would it not?
Thanks for that Osarusan. Wasnt online to respond.

Mypost you cant pick and choose who you want to be part of the 'No campaign'. All of the above is being claimed by parts of the No campaign and is quite clearly scare-mongering.

[BohsPartisan]

Mypost you cant pick and choose who you want to be part of the 'No campaign'. All of the above is being claimed by parts of the No campaign and is quite clearly scare-mongering.

There is more than one campaign. You can choose which campaign you want to associate with. I'm sure Mypost has no connection with COIR. Neither do I. Throwing their slack jawed arguments at us as a defense for the Yes side is like me saying you support Fianna Fail because you are on the yes side.

For the record there is some audio visual material online at the Socialist Party website. http://www.socialistparty.net

[micls]

There is more than one campaign. You can choose which campaign you want to associate with. I'm sure Mypost has no connection with COIR. Neither do I. Throwing their slack jawed arguments at us as a defense for the Yes side is like me saying you support Fianna Fail because you are on the yes side.


Where did I throw the arguments as defense for the yes side. Please read my posts if you're going to argue about them.

If you read the conversation you'll see mypost claiming that ONLY the yes side were scare-mongering. This is quite simply a lie.

I never claimed mypost had a connection to Coir or agreed with them, but they are part of the No side and they,and others, are scaremongering.

[BohsPartisan]

Fair enough but you can't blame me or him for what Coir/Youth defense are doing.

[micls]

Fair enough but you can't blame me or him for what Coir/Youth defense are doing.

Eh...I never did :confused:

Again mypost was the one questioning people who were voting Yes(superfrank I think) on the basis that the yes camp were scaremongering

[dahamsta]

It has to be said, there's a strong tendency of people on both sides in this thread to use the argument that if such-and-such a group is supporting/opposing this, then that proves they're right. It's a very, very weak debating tactic.

adam

[micls]

It has to be said, there's a strong tendency of people on both sides in this thread to use the argument that if such-and-such a group is supporting/opposing this, then that proves they're right. It's a very, very weak debating tactic.

adam

It may be a weak debating tactic, but it is something that is happening on the streets.

E.g people saying 'Sinn féin(or that crazy group Cóir) are voting against so Im voting for or the opposite( I dont trust Fianna Fáil so Im voting against) wihtout having made any effort to try to read or understand what the treaty involves.

It scares me how many people Ive met(on both sides) who will vote on this basis

[dahamsta]

I'm not talking about it on the streets, I'm talking about it here. In this thread. Like I said.

[micls]

I'm not talking about it on the streets, I'm talking about it here. In this thread. Like I said.

I saw what you wrote, I was using it to make a point about in other situations that the same is happening and perhaps move the discussion on to that given that your comment about on here had already been discussed.

[BohsPartisan]

but it is something that is happening on the streets.



Probably because of the incomprehensibility of the treaty itself. Peple find themselves trying to figure out what way to vote so fall back on their own prejudices. Mind you you can't blame anyone for not trusting Fianna Fáil. They have a track record of lying.

[micls]

Probably because of the incomprehensibility of the treaty itself. Peple find themselves trying to figure out what way to vote so fall back on their own prejudices. Mind you you can't blame anyone for not trusting Fianna Fáil. They have a track record of lying.

Can't blame anyone for not trusting Libertas, Coir, the Youth defense, Sinn Féin or the Catholic Church either. Still not a good enough reason alone to vote yes.

If you can't understand it, or the informaton from the Commission etc, then either don't vote or spoil you're vote. How can you decide Yes or No on something you don't understand?

[BohsPartisan]

Can't blame anyone for not trusting Libertas, Coir, the Youth defense, Sinn Féin or the Catholic Church either. Still not a good enough reason alone to vote yes.

If you can't understand it, or the informaton from the Commission etc, then either don't vote or spoil you're vote. How can you decide Yes or No on something you don't understand?

Well if you look at the quotes I posted above, its clear that it is deliberately hard to understand in order to deceive people. In that case voting no because you don't understand it is perfectly acceptable.

[SMorgan]

Can't blame anyone for not trusting Libertas, Coir, the Youth defense, Sinn Féin or the Catholic Church either. Still not a good enough reason alone to vote yes.

If you can't understand it, or the informaton from the Commission etc, then either don't vote or spoil you're vote. How can you decide Yes or No on something you don't understand?


Totally disagree.

If you don't understand the Treaty then vote No. A No Vote has to be the default position because you know exactly what you'll get with a No vote and that is that the situation will remain exactly as it is at the minute. Vote Yes and God only knows what you're letting yourself in for.

Here's some good reading,

http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=TOM+MCGURK-qqqs=commentandanalysis-qqqid=33513-qqqx=1.asp

[Poor Student]

A commissioner isn't going to overlook something that's completely alien to his own state. If he knows that it will receive a negative reaction in his homeland, he will have it voted down. He's his own nationality first, then European, and he's not going to risk losing his seat at the next European elections, by allowing it to pass unopposed.

Some major policy or policies will come up during Ireland's absence of a commissioner that will affect this country. Having no commissioner and .8% of voting weights puts us in a very vulnerable position.

Yet again, the commissioner is independent of any state and is to act in the interests of the Union, something they swear in an oath:

"Having been appointed as a member of the Commission of the European Communities by the Council of the European Union, after the vote of approval by the European Parliament, I do solemnly undertake: to be completely independent in the performance of my duties, in the general interest of the Communities; in the performance of these duties, neither to seek nor to take instructions from any government or from any other body; to refrain from any action incompatible with my duties.
I formally note the undertaking of each Member State to respect this principle and not to seek to influence members of the Commission in the performance of their tasks.

I further undertake to respect, both during and after my term of office, the obligations arising therefrom and in particular, the duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance after I have ceased to hold office of certain appointments or benefits."


That counts as surrender of sovereignty in my book, and we've spent 800 years of our history fighting foreign powers. We're not willing to give it up again.

Please don't distort this debate with primordial nationalistic notions.


As an EU member, we are entitled to a commissioner on point of principle, I am not willing to see it surrendered, for any period of office.

No, we're not. The Nice Treaty says that the commission will be reduced once the EU reaches 27 states.


That makes a mockery of QMV. Either there is QMV, or there isn't.

If it makes a mockery of it then what are you worried about?


This treaty was drawn up by D'Estaing (French), pushed by Chirac (French), Sarkosy (French), advocated by Prodi (Italian), and demanded by Merkel (German). They are the longest serving members of the Union with the biggest populations, who hold the biggest sway, and are the global face of the EU. Poland has been a member for 4 years, and counts as a "small" country. Bigger than others, but still small in the eyes of Europe.

France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom make up 18.5% of the number of member states. Before the population criteria even comes into it they're miles off making 55%. If that criteria isn't met then population will have nothing to do with it. If it is then it's unlikely population will be a deciding factor. These countries have no way of forcing stuff through by their singular will and let's not pretend they work in unison anyway.


But you haven't explained why we need it.

We need the Council President because there are too many countries to have a single 6 month rotating presidency and also the holding of the presidency by a single smaller nation puts pressure on it.


Obviously by QMV, with the most voting weights, the election for President will be a carve up for them. There's no equality in this instance.

You don't seem to understand QMV, it has two voting tiers, number of member states being one of them. With 27 states each state represents roughly 3.5% of the vote.


How many people elected the current Dail on European issues, over domestic matters, e.g. economic, health, transport, crime, children's issues among others?? The European elections are next year, not last year.

I cast my Dail vote weighing up factors of approach to domestic, European and foreign affairs. Our elected TDs elect the Ministers who will sit on the Council of the European Union. The European elections are just for the MEPs, your elected government has the biggest impact on European affairs, if your choose to ignore that then that's your problem, don't tar all others with the same brush. This point holds no weight.

[Poor Student]

Ha.
Some arguments from the yes campaign. Not from people on here, but prominent national politicians -

"A no vote will result in chaos"
"We must not allow the holocaust to happen again"
"Investors will pull out of Ireland if we vote no"
"We will be a pariah state across Europe"
"Europe is at peace now, don't let that change"

Who is involved in histrionics and scaremongering?

The difference is, you personally are engaging in the scare mongering with intellectually dishonest comparisions to Hitler.


The aim of uniting Europe under one ideology was held by the three mentioned dictators of whom I have differing opinions. The Lisbon treaty achieves that goal.

I'm not sure what ideology Caesar was supposed to be uniting Europe under, not that he even had half of the territory in the EU under his rule. Really stretching your point in desperation. Anyway, all three were single rulers whereas the EU is the aggregate rule of the whole Union. Utterly ridiculous comparison.


We will effectively have Europe wide government with all but the unimportant local decisions being made in one place. We will havea common foreign policy and a common economic policy.

So? Establish why that's a bad thing. As GavinZac has pointed out, we're living in an era of shifting global power towards the East to India and China. The non-oil producing nations are shifting billions if not trillions in wealth towards the oil producing world. We require a strong united Europe capable of actually making decisions to represent its constituent parts.


If you think the people of Europe will have much input into that then you are terribly naive. Let me quote former French president Giscard d'Estaing - one of the main architects of the original version of the EU constitution on the lisbon treaty

"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly".

Does no one else think this is more than a bit sinister?

How about the words of Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign minister?

"The aim of this treaty is to be unreadable...It is a success."

I've seen this quotes bandied about but I couldn't possibly comment on them. I have no idea of the context or even what language they originally come from and how they may have translated.


As for my previous claims which were poo-poo'd about the neo-liberal economic implications of the treaty, lets hear from that renowned loony left wing organisation, the Irish Business and Employers Confederation (IBEC)

"The Lisbon Reform Treaty creates the legal basis for the liberalisation of services of general economic interest. A yes vote for the Lisbon Treaty crates the potential for increased opportunities for Irish business particularly in areas subject to increasing liberalisation such as Health, Education, Transport, Energy and the Environment"

Again, you must establish why this is a problem in itself. At this point we're offering inadequate public service as it is and it will be hard to even maintain that with ever shrinking public coffers. Introducing private competition in certain areas is something we're already doing in some areas and considering in others.

As a general point on all this whining about Merkel and Sarkozy. Arguments seem to be working a priori that these are evil people and Brussels is automatically malevolent. Germany and France are two of the largest democratic republics in the world. Also, in this treaty their combined state vote equal about 7% for the 55% criteria. Even their populations only register so much of an impact. I can't see how this treaty establishes our loss of independence under a Franco-German axis. Someone explain to me how they alone can wield this ultimate power with reference to voting structures.

[Poor Student]

or the Catholic Church either.

When has the Catholic Church come out on the No side? The only comments I've seen from the church here was insisting that the Lisbon Treaty does not affect abortion in Ireland.

[Macy]

If you can't understand it, or the informaton from the Commission etc, then either don't vote or spoil you're vote. How can you decide Yes or No on something you don't understand?
If in doubt, you have to vote No. If it isn't being explained properly or you can't understand it then you're quite right to vote no.

More of the same scare tactics from the Yes side over the weekend about our standing in Europe, foreign direct investment etc etc, without addressing the issues such as privatisation of health and education. These issues, along with the Governments failure to give the commitment to fully implement the charter of fundamental rights (probably my main issue) means that I'm a definite no.

Despite how I've posted I would've been undecided, leaning No, basically the failure to be able to get proper commitments from the Yes side means I've made up my mind. GavinZac is pretty much making the Yes side arguments here that you hear in TV, Radio, in person from the Yes side. It has no substance and doesn't address the very real concerns. A few express commitments from the politicians would've probably been enough.

[GavinZac]

If in doubt, you have to vote No. If it isn't being explained properly or you can't understand it then you're quite right to vote no. :confused: No, no you're not. You're supposed to vote on the issue at hand. If you haven't bothered your arse to understand it and are going on the ridiculous lies that are being bandied about, you're not voting on the treaty and making a mockery of your vote, and remember, as one No poster points out "People died for your freedom" - don't abuse it because you don't like Fianna Fail.


More of the same scare tactics from the Yes side over the weekend about our standing in Europe, foreign direct investment etc etc, without addressing the issues such as privatisation of health and education.They aren't being addressed because they aren't bloody issues, despite the lies. I am a socialist, I voted SP in the last election. If I thought there was a chance this would lead to privatised education or would have any influence on a further privitised health system (sadly I think we're going that way anyway, not because of the Lisbon treaty but because, like RTE with their state funding and commercial advertising, we're just too small to support a world class health care system on our own) then I would be voting no.


These issues, along with the Governments failure to give the commitment to fully implement the charter of fundamental rights (probably my main issue) means that I'm a definite no.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. The government, who are trying to get this passed, in your view might not implement the rights charter, so you're voting no so that they can't and any future governments can't? :confused: What led you to that logic?

Despite how I've posted I would've been undecided, leaning No, basically the failure to be able to get proper commitments from the Yes side means I've made up my mind. GavinZac is pretty much making the Yes side arguments here that you hear in TV, Radio, in person from the Yes side. It has no substance and doesn't address the very real concerns. A few express commitments from the politicians would've probably been enough.Thats the problem. You're seeing no substance where there is, because it isn't in the form of vague threats to our constitution, and concerns where there are none, because apparently you trust some faceless lobby group and the desperate dying throes of Sinn Fein and the Social Party for your information.

[Macy]

don't abuse it because you don't like Fianna Fail.
The parties I actually voted for/ gave preferences too are also supporting it so that's kinda irrelevant to me (even if I do hate the rotten to the core corrupt baskets :D ).


They aren't being addressed because they aren't bloody issues, despite the lies. I am a socialist, I voted SP in the last election. If I thought there was a chance this would lead to privatised education or would have any influence on a further privitised health system (sadly I think we're going that way anyway, not because of the Lisbon treaty but because, like RTE with their state funding and commercial advertising, we're just too small to support a world class health care system on our own) then I would be voting no.
They won't give the commitment because they can't. The fact that it's Government policy to privatise health I suppose would make it hard for them to give a commitment that this treaty will have any effect. The elemen


I'm not sure what you mean by this. The government, who are trying to get this passed, in your view might not implement the rights charter, so you're voting no so that they can't and any future governments can't? :confused: What led you to that logic?
They won't give the commitment to implement the workers rights elements of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which Ireland has an opt out on (or rather it's linked to the national governments) contrary to most EU countries. So we'll get the liberalisation of common good markets (including health and education) without having the balancing side of workers rights to representation and collective bargaining. Martin just said the Government would "consider" such legislation - campaign speak for "not on your nelly, our IBEC bankrollers would never let us". It clearly isn't a lie that this is an issue, as the Yes side haven't once said it is, so I'll be voting No.

[pete]

Does any one else think those Ref Comm adverts are terrible. Amazing someone got paid to make them.

I think it would be logical to assume any one voting Yes on Thursday has voted Yes for previous Treaties. Any one voting No this time that voted Yes for previous Treaties?

I feel the vote will be tight on Thursday (always the way with EU Referendums) but suspect the Yes side more likely to actually vote. If Bertie Ahern was still Taoiseach there would be no chance of passing this in light of recent Tribunal evidence as the protest vote would swing it.

Just when I thought enough wackos on the No side I see Eamon Dunphy calling for No vote. ;)

[Macy]

I feel the vote will be tight on Thursday (always the way with EU Referendums) but suspect the Yes side more likely to actually vote.
I would've thought the opposite, but wasn't one of the polls over the weekend that put the yes side ahead based on those that would actually vote?

[GavinZac]

They won't give the commitment to implement the workers rights elements of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which Ireland has an opt out on (or rather it's linked to the national governments) contrary to most EU countries. So we'll get the liberalisation of common good markets (including health and education) without having the balancing side of workers rights to representation and collective bargaining. Martin just said the Government would "consider" such legislation - campaign speak for "not on your nelly, our IBEC bankrollers would never let us". It clearly isn't a lie that this is an issue, as the Yes side haven't once said it is, so I'll be voting No.But by voting no, you're voting no to the Charter of Fundamental Rights? :confused: Whether or not they'll implement it (Im not sure why you think they wouldnt, workers already have those rights here, this is just a europe-wide agreement to agree upon the same for the new arrivals), if your preferred political party was elected, they couldn't implement it either should it be rejected.

[Macy]

But by voting no, you're voting no to the Charter of Fundamental Rights? :confused: Whether or not they'll implement it (Im not sure why you think they wouldnt, workers already have those rights here, this is just a europe-wide agreement to agree upon the same for the new arrivals), if your preferred political party was elected, they couldn't implement it either should it be rejected.
I'm voting no to the Charter of Fundamental Rights as it'll stand in Ireland. I'm voting no to the free market/ competition side of it whilst there is no commitment to balance that with workers rights. The same workers rights that most of europe enjoys - ffs we're behind even the UK in terms of right to representation! Unless the Government commits to introduce such legislation, then the Charter of Fundamental Rights is basically just a business charter.

[mypost]

Any one voting No this time that voted Yes for previous Treaties?

Mypost.

The no side have the momentum, all that's needed is to translate that momentum into votes on Thursday.

If you consider yourself European, then Irish, you'll vote yes. If you wish to defend democracy, uphold the rejection by French and Dutch electorates in 2005, and protect Ireland's place in the EU, you'll vote no. Fairly straight forward really.

[Block G Raptor]

Big push by the No campaign in Grafton St (Dublin) at lunchtime today. I was handed a leaflet by a bloke claiming to be a Malteese Politician, Which said that the EU has a secret Police force that has Raped, Murdered and Sexually abused EU citizens for the past 12 years, carried out grotesque experiments on mentally disabled kids in eastern europe and plans a Naziesque take over of all member states(all with the full knowledge and support of the EU leadership) . Now I've heard some whacky arguments from both sides but this one really is laughable. anyone else get handed one of these leaflets today. I am voting No to this treaty, but people like this lunatic are not going to do the No campaign any good