Printable View
Ask yourself... if this was a genuine stick to beat the government with, do you not think the opposition parties would be doing so? Why is it, if its apparantly "all bad", Mr Kenny is more worried about one man's finance than our status in our economic bloc?Quote:
Originally Posted by A face
Because he also supports it. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
I don't get this 'the yes/no side haven't convinced me' attitude.
Why is it they're job to convince you?
This is something that will affect you, and your life, surely it's your own responsibility to inform yourself and make a decision based on the treaty itself?
After all if you(and people in general) make the wrong decision it's you that will suffer
And the only party leader/party that doesnt support it is Sinn Fein. Would you vote for them, yeah?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
You're voting on a referendum, not an election. :rolleyes:
I know that. However, you seemed annoyed at the opposition parties for going along with the government. The only party not supporting it is Sinn Fein, so I'm asking are you a Sinn Fein voter? Not because "its an election" but because political parties tend to reflect their voter's opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Have you read about the treaty yet?
The opposition parties always support EU referendums. Even the Greens are supporting this one. The fact that SF have recognised what it is and are opposing it, makes no difference to my vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
As more countries join it makes the Union impossible to run if everyone retains vetoes. Vetoes need to be given up to enable a more efficient decision making process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Block G Raptor
No they don't. I remember the opposition raising the point of the Rapid Response Force in the original Nice referendum. The Irish people made it known they agreed with them and voted against it. The treaty was re-written to provide assurances for Ireland's position, and both sides were then happy to endorse the revised treaty. It then passed under its new form.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
What way did you vote in those, by the way? Would you generally consider yourself cynical towards the EU? I ask because I havent actually seen all that much of an argument coming from you, beyond a seemingly set dislike of the manner this is being processed.
FF, FG, Labour, and the PD's all supported the original Nice Treaty, as I did. This is a different kettle of fish entirely, an undemocratic jokeshop, which involves handing up aspects of our sovereignty to Brussels. The yes side say it's just a few cosmetic changes involved, yet only one country is permitted to hold a referendum :confused:, and that's only on a constitutional requirement, and it's one of the areas we'll have to give up, if it passes. The surrender of our sovereignty to me is a red line area, as we've been ruled by foreign states for long enough, and so the referendum cannot be supported in any form.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
Yes you have to read it to come up with your own view, however (as this thread shows) the treaty's are always open to interpretation and aren't black and white. This is where the issue of being convinced about the merits or otherwise. Loss of power v greater efficiency for example is something that has to be debated and can't be just garnered from the Treaty.Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
In my opinion we're starting from a position what we have we hold, and it's up for the yes side to convince me/ give me garantee's of the effect of the losses will mean to make me want to change what we already have.
So far it seems to amount to some laughable (coming as it does from the Governing parties and their attitude to the working classes/ poor in this country) nonsense about taking care of the assession states; and about how Ireland would look if we vote no after everything they have done for us.
Nice 1 showed that the Government is capable of closing off issues that the people aren't happy with, so if people aren't happy with aspects of this treaty they should vote no and the Government can renegotiate it so it is acceptable to the people.
No, you're not getting it. Its not about our image or reputation, or specifically about the poor souls in hungary. its about ourselves and everybody losing those benefits we have outlined, either by our forced exclusion from what is a member's club that we have no automatic right to be in or entitlement to benefit from, or the benefits that would be lost by the ever decreasingly efficient EU which already suffers from accusations of sluggish bureaucracy. We have a choice: rectify the position that we were in whereby these sort of controls were set in stone/ink for a certain size of the EU, or risk losing the single most important politico-economic development in the history of our continent and shared culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
That's pure scare mongering. We weren't thrown out after Nice 1, we won't be if we vote no to Lisbon. We'll get the necessary concessions, or a more coherent argument that will get it through in the future (as that's how our democracy works in terms of referenda).
As I said in the post, there is a debate to be had on loss of power versus greater EU efficiency. But frankly, that'll be lost in the waffle of nonsense like we'll be thrown out of the EU if we vote no.
*sigh* yes it will be lost if thats what you're focusing on. We won't, in my opinion, be thrown out of the EU if we vote no; but the attitude that the EU is only for our benefit and ridiculous attitude that we can take it or leave it, is what I was getting at, rather than any expulsion. There seems to be an almost flippant disrespect toward our Union partners because everybody has grown up with the EU simply being a bottomless bucket of cash while we focus on internal matters - Very easy to do as an island nation who's inhabitants exposure to our EU partners rarely goes beyond the beach colonies or going on the **** in Prague. The crucial matter is, will it be worth being part of the EU if we vote no? I don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
GavinZac, I'm not going to tell you again: drop the condescending smart-assed attitude or stay out of CA.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
Wait, how am I the one being smart arsed and condescending? In just one post above from a poster that has spent the entire thread misrepresenting and being condescending toward my points, the comments on my arguments wereQuote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
And a sigh of frustration at this is somehow worse? :confused:Quote:
scare mongering ... (We'll get) a more coherent argument.... waffle of nonsense
They're not serial offenders. You've been stirring the crap on here for weeks now. And this isn't the place to discuss it. I'm not going to tell you again.
I think Gavin's raising an important point here that seems to be lost in the discussion. There has to be a reasonable trade off between national sovereignty and short term self interest and the interest of the Union as a whole. The decision making stuctures become increasingly ineffective in a larger Union.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
I have not made up my mind on how to vote yet. I am yet to recieve any unbiased information on the subject and, for me, this is crucial. I'm not sideing with parties, I'll go with what I see as best for Ireland.
http://www.libertas.org/content/view/253/1/
Love the ads, as it should keep the message in mind, when the political parties begin the scaremongering tactics in a couple of weeks. :)
FACTQuote:
Originally Posted by mypost
These ads certainly are hard-hitting and thought provoking.
Pie-chart! - FACT
Bertie and Enda are in cahoots! - FACT
Bertie and the "Prince of Darkness" are in cahoots! - FACT
Lucinda Crieghton will KILL US ALL! - FACT
They're like a breath of fresh air these guys.
Just stated my research on this but does any one want to suggest the consequences of a Yes or No vote.
- Qualified majority seems logical as will be impossible to get 25 countries to agree on everything. As a general rule Ireland seems to vote with the majority anyway. Have we ever actually used a veto?
- Self amending treaty seems strange however is it possible that the EU Commission already makes decisions without referendums? Is there any real impact of this?
I am generally very pro EU as lets face it they have given use billions & we would be a back water without them. Does not mean I will blindly Vote Yes though. This is not really a Pro or Anti EU debate though...
It makes some decisions without referendums, now it wants more. It seems to like like more, lots and lots of more. In answer to your question, I'd suggest framing it wrt to the Irish Constitution and see how that appeals. So, would there be any real impact in allowing the Irish Government to amend the consitution without referenda?Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
I'm pro-EU too, in fact I consider myself a federalist. But there's federal with central authority and distributed decision-making, and federal with central authority and central decision-making, and me no likey the latter at all; particularly given the greed for power the central authority already has. They need a clock in the gob, and I for one will be giving it to them.
adam
Article 48 outlines a complex range of procedures for that need to go through for this amendment. The EU Council needs to call a convention with heads of member states & variety of other requirements so not as easy as 10 guys in Europe deciding. EU National Parliaments can block certain aspects too. Hurts my head to read any more.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
The BBC Q & A section also includes the attached document.
I did notice the Treaty enshires steps for Countries to exit the EU which I presume did not exist previously.
Who (organisers background) are Libertas & what is their agenda? From reading their web site they come across as anti EU but that seems to simplify. Their poster campaign is not exactly high browed with "EU army" scaremongering.
That's the case with democracy everywhere. Even in a 3-tier coalition government such as here, not everyone will agree with each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
no...
Bertie Aherns resignation will help this getting passed as I feel will reduce chance of protest vote.
I was just thinking today who'll be the first country to leave the EU..One of the Scandinavians is always possible, but my money's on Bulgaria.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Want to share your reasoning? Given you have queue of other countries trying to get in can't see any "poorer" countries leaving. Obviously it would be possible to leave but leave an economic union with regards customs etc... in place.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveyCakes
The treaty has an "opt-out" clause regarding the European Union, to be decided voluntarily by the country itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveyCakes
Cowen and co, will never do that, so it's not an issue.
Why would they want to?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
I got the department of foreign affairs booklet in the post today....the EU has grown a lot judging by the map that's in it..Ukraine, Belarus, Switzerland, Norway, Russia (Kaliningrad), Moldova, and former Yugoslav countries all included.
I've read the treaty and with neutrality and taxation decisions safeguarded as being unanimous and with subsidiarity at the core of the EU at present (I do believe they try not to stick their noses in where it's not wanted), I really don't see why anyone would want to vote against it. I agree that 27 commissioners is too many as the 2/3 commissioners will be rotated on a purely equal basis so I see no problem at all.
-It is an ammendment to already existing EU treaties, which were based on the EU consitution (which was rejected)
-It will reduced the 26 counties say in the EU. The voting power will be halved in the Council of Europe. A proposal must be rejected by at least 1/3 of the votes to be rejected. The commission isn't required to withdraw it, although it remains only a proposal.
-It will give major EU member states greater power while reucing smaller states' power
-The 26 counties' neutraility will be abolished and the military must be made availible to the EU for peace keeping and defense.
-More tax payer money must be spend on the military to be able to compensate for this.
For all these reasons, I will be voting NO.
Everyone in Ireland realises what the EU has done for us but we DO NOT OWE THEM OUR NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY.
Any chance of a poll been set up, to see the general point of view here.
http://www.libertas.org/content/view/270/1/Quote:
Originally Posted by Da Real Rover
Do France/Germany owe us theirs? Either side having too much voting power is a bad thing. Balancing them properly is a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Da Real Rover
Irelands vote will be so insignificant that we will balance nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
Next to Germany's 82 million inhabitants, we are insignificant. You're either for a 'united' Europe or you're not, so demanding more than the 20:1 ratio you'd expect means you really have to consider whether you want the benefits or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Da Real Rover
This treaty aims to give equality to EU citizen's votes, rather than you and me having more voting power than those in the larger states. If you can't see equality/empathy with an inhabitant of Germany or France or any of the 350 million citizens who live in countries with 10 times our population, then the Union isn't for you. Fortunately for the rest of us, we quite like the Union and the fact that it has dragged us kicking and screaming out of the third world and into providing far more than our fair share of IS/IT services.Code:Germany 82,210,000
France 63,753,140
UK 60,587,300
Italy 59,337,888
Spain 45,116,894
Poland 38,115,967
Romania 21,565,119
Ne'lands 16,372,715
Greece 11,125,179
Portugal 10,599,095
Belgium 10,584,534
Czech R 10,306,709
Hungary 10,066,158
Sweden 9,142,817
Austria 8,316,487
Bulgaria 7,679,290
Denmark 5,457,415
Slovakia 5,396,168
Finland 5,289,128
Ireland 4,239,848