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.
Printable View
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
That's a bit of scare-mongering from the Yes side. I don't believe it for a second.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
More Yes scare-mongering but if people actually go and read the treaty they will know what it's about.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
It's simple: don't listen to these lobby groups, just read the damned thing and make up your mind that way.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
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.Quote:
How many countries constitute the 55%/65% waffle?? Who are they?? How will it be affected on the acceptance of new states?? :confused:
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Explain why the Bold bit is needed.
Yeah, and France and Germany will be equally affected by the changes. What's your point?Quote:
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.
Er, what? How's this relevant?Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
You know where that line of thinking always ends.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by poor student
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.
That makes a mockery of QMV. Either there is QMV, or there isn't.Quote:
Also, you're ignoring that four countries can block any QMV decision.
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.Quote:
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.
But you haven't explained why we need it.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
France and Germany will be equally affected by the changes. What's your point?
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.Quote:
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.
You may not have brought it up in your arguments, but others who support a 'no' not have brought it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
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?
Obviously those issues are big to you, and if they are, fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
I'm like a broken record at this stage.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
You're asking the wrong man. Why was the Nice Treaty voted on again here when it was rejected the first time?Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
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.
I'm quoting this for posterity.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
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.
You haven't answered the question though.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
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)
Of course he could choose to ignore it either. Surely not though.....Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
These two comments are indicitave of the hysterics and histrionics of the no campaign, particularly the one by BohsPartisan. Unbelievable.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
Mypost,I'll reply to your other responses when I get time.
Ha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Student
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"
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Student Mullet
.....Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Student Mullet
Quote:
"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly".
If thats not "deception and slight of hand" what is?Quote:
"The aim of this treaty is to be unreadable...It is a success."
That doesn't quite justify the "achieves everything Hitler dreamed of" part of your argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
Which I explained in the long post I made on the last page.Quote:
Originally Posted by Student Mullet
Thanks for that Osarusan. Wasnt online to respond.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
For the record there is some audio visual material online at the Socialist Party website. http://www.socialistparty.net
Where did I throw the arguments as defense for the yes side. Please read my posts if you're going to argue about them.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
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.
Fair enough but you can't blame me or him for what Coir/Youth defense are doing.
Eh...I never did :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
Again mypost was the one questioning people who were voting Yes(superfrank I think) on the basis that the yes camp were scaremongering
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
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/st...513-qqqx=1.asp
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
"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."
Please don't distort this debate with primordial nationalistic notions.Quote:
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.
No, we're not. The Nice Treaty says that the commission will be reduced once the EU reaches 27 states.Quote:
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.
If it makes a mockery of it then what are you worried about?Quote:
That makes a mockery of QMV. Either there is QMV, or there isn't.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
But you haven't explained why we need it.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
The difference is, you personally are engaging in the scare mongering with intellectually dishonest comparisions to Hitler.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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."
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.Quote:
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"
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.