Lisbon Treaty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I voted no primarily because I didn't see anything wrong with the status quo; to be honest, I couldn't see any other way of voting.

---

It's rare that Stu, Adam, mypost and bohemians fans are shoulder-to-shoulder on an issue. :) But like the political parties on the Yes side, it's convenient to put differences aside for the greater good of the country.

And the decision on Friday was for the greater good of the country. It was important to get this voted down, so we wouldn't have to be subject to an EU nation, who like other nations around the world, wants a permanent President and Foreign Minister. Mary McAleese and Micheal Martin would be effectively useless from next year, the Dail would be nothing more than a poor mans talking shop. The Irish Constitution would be no more.

As it stands, we have a strong Europe as it is, and while we need to compete with Russia (banjaxed outside Moscow), India (frequent terrorist outrages), and China (world's most repressive regimes), the issue of climate change is not as important as the individual loss of sovereignty and democracy that passing this treaty entails. The loss of sovereignty is something which should never be surrendered by any nation, let alone Ireland, with our history. Ditto democracy.

Free Europe is a strong Europe, and the Europe most citizens want. Only politicians want Federalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

As it stands, we have a strong Europe as it is, and while we need to compete with Russia (banjaxed outside Moscow), India (frequent terrorist outrages), and China (world's most repressive regimes), the issue of climate change is not as important as the individual loss of sovereignty and democracy that passing this treaty entails. The loss of sovereignty is something which should never be surrendered by any nation, let alone Ireland, with our history. Ditto democracy.

Free Europe is a strong Europe, and the Europe most citizens want. Only politicians want Federalism.

---

Your comments on Russia, India and China are frankly, beneath ridicule.

Its because of people like you I want Europe to have more influence.

I voted Yes as the admin and decision making changes seem sensible, necessary and as good a deal as I think we could reasonably expect. The EU has been good for us and threatened doom of previous Treatys never occurred so ultimately I trust the EU. I did my own research & I also did not feel any of the organisations on the No side made me inclined to question the EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

Ah you're one of those who thinks climate change will just sort itself out, right I'll back out now as I'd rather not lower my IQ to the level of a marshmallow

---

So I should do what you say because you said to do it? And you think I have the IQ of a marshmallow?

That's a No vote for me so. See how this works?

A further problem with your bullying, dismissive arrogance arises from the fact that it's a tact the EU have tried before. Take the Maastricht Treaty, for example. We were basically told that (and I paraphrase out of necessity) without the euro, Ireland would be nothing. We had to have this or we'd all end up back in the 60s. So we voted for it; we were young and naive at the time. Denmark, Sweden and the UK didn't vote for it and lo! the sky hasn't fallen in on their economies. So people are looking for more of a reason to vote something in than "Shut up and vote for it, idiot."

Oh, and I'd say Croatia will be fine.

I am fairly sure that if the Government ask the same question, with some tinkering, they'll get the same answer. Last Thursday’s outcome bears little resemblance to Nice One.

The fact is that you can be pro-EU and fully acknowledge the benefits of Ireland's involvement in the EEC, EC and now the EU and still vote against the Lisbon Treaty. This agreement was anti-democratic, in that it was drafted to avoid some countries having to put it to their people and involved the appointing of an unelected President and Minister of Foreign Affairs. I’d say that if this Treaty was put to a vote across Europe, Ireland would have strengthened its credentials as a pro-EU country. Do you believe for one minute that Denmark, Netherlands, France or the UK would have gotten anything like 46% for the “indecipherable drivel” that was the Lisbon Treaty. There is a space reserved in heaven for those on this message Board trying to explain it to the rest of us, even if one of them tried to claim that the Commissioners have a legitimate mandate and cannot be considered unelected. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

Mary McAleese and Micheal Martin would be effectively useless from next year

---

Would anyone notice the difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

We effectively denied Croatia the chance for economic growth by voting no, how about that for a reason to vote yes

How about a common climate change policy that would put pressure on the US and China for seconds

---

Ah, the Maude Flanders argument..."Won't somebody PLEASE think of the Croatians"

They seem to be doing okay....

http://eu.mfa.hr/?mh=34&mv=307&id=4232

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

So I should do what you say because you said to do it? And you think I have the IQ of a marshmallow?

That's a No vote for me so. See how this works?

A further problem with your bullying, dismissive arrogance arises from the fact that it's a tact the EU have tried before. Take the Maastricht Treaty, for example. We were basically told that (and I paraphrase out of necessity) without the euro, Ireland would be nothing. We had to have this or we'd all end up back in the 60s. So we voted for it; we were young and naive at the time. Denmark, Sweden and the UK didn't vote for it and lo! the sky hasn't fallen in on their economies. So people are looking for more of a reason to vote something in than "Shut up and vote for it, idiot."

Oh, and I'd say Croatia will be fine.

---

You've just done whats known as post-fact justification.

You didn't vote no because Jebus thinks you have the brain of a marshmallow.

As for the Euro, I don't think comparing us to Britain, Denmark or Sweden is in any way relevant. By any measure, Euro membership has been very good to us. If you're looking for a comparison, do some research into how the New Zealand and Icelandic economies (small island economies moving from an agrarian base) are doing recently outside an Currency Area or Trade Block.

Your comments are indicative of the "post-Celtic Tiger superiority complex with an added dose of economic paranoia" that seems to have grasped large swathes of the country every since people realised that property accumulation wasn't the magic beans production license they'd thought it was.

Without wanting to sound like David McWilliams, as a nation we're like a child thats been told the birthday party is over and they can't have any more cake. We're angry and we'll blame anyone who tries to tell us what to do.

The EU has and continues to be beneficial to us to this day. Anyone who disputes this should at least bring some figures/examples or the like to the table.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

You've just done whats known as post-fact justification.

You didn't vote no because Jebus thinks you have the brain of a marshmallow.

---

But people did vote no because politicians thought the people have the brains of a marshmallow. It's called likening one thing to another. Obviously jebus didn't sway my vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

As for the Euro, I don't think comparing us to Britain, Denmark or Sweden is in any way relevant. By any measure, Euro membership has been very good to us.

---

Again with the sweeping dismissive statements with no back up whatsoever. I think it's a default setting for some of yez!

And I'm not trying to argue whether or not the euro is good, but I am arguing that the EU and the government went way over the top when they stated the consequences of not joining. Different thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SMorgan

Do you believe for one minute that Denmark, Netherlands, France or the UK would have gotten anything like 46% for the “indecipherable drivel” that was the Lisbon Treaty. There is a space reserved in heaven for those on this message Board trying to explain it to the rest of us, even if one of them tried to claim that the Commissioners have a legitimate mandate and cannot be considered unelected. :confused:

---

1. You are right that it hasn't been well explained by the people who had a responsibility to do so (the main political parties).
2. That acknowledged, legal documents by their nature are "indecipherable drivel", particularly EU ones due to the complexity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

But people did vote no because politicians thought the people have the brains of a marshmallow. It's called likening one thing to another. Obviously jebus didn't sway my vote.


Again with the sweeping dismissive statements with no back up whatsoever. I think it's a default setting for some of yez!

And I'm not trying to argue whether or not the euro is good, but I am arguing that the EU and the government went way over the top when they stated the consequences of not joining. Different thing.

---

See my reference to Iceland and New Zealand, which are probably the two closest economies to Ireland's outside the EU.

These are the best example of what not joining the Euro could've cost us.

The best you could do was a comparison to three countries 10-20 times our size that we economically have nothing in common with.

Denmark and Sweden have 40m-80m people now?

And ironically, we've 10-20 times the population of Iceland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Denmark and Sweden have 40m-80m people now?

And ironically, we've 10-20 times the population of Iceland.

---

Thanks for misreading my post and the geography lesson.

I'll still take Iceland and New Zealand as the best comparisons when assessing the benefits of joining the Euro vs what could've happened.

If your views re the single currency are indicative of the wider population then the Government has a much wider and harder job on its hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

A further problem with your bullying, dismissive arrogance arises from the fact that it's a tact the EU have tried before. Take the Maastricht Treaty, for example. We were basically told that (and I paraphrase out of necessity) without the euro, Ireland would be nothing. We had to have this or we'd all end up back in the 60s.

---

The euro is quite popular, I don't think it took any bullying to get us to join.

Citing "popularity" as a reason is very odd. Popular with people or currency traders? I'm not sure how popular it would have been with either before we joined the eurozone, what with it not actually be a currency and all...

I see McCreevy is taking some of the flak for this in the European Parliament and facing calls for his resignation. Brilliant stuff, couldn't happen to a nicer ****.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheridan

I see McCreevy is taking some of the flak for this in the European Parliament and facing calls for his resignation. Brilliant stuff, couldn't happen to a nicer ****.

---

Not surprised given the balls the government made of promoting this. Still though, 5 more years come the next nationals eh lads

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheridan

I see McCreevy is taking some of the flak for this in the European Parliament and facing calls for his resignation. Brilliant stuff, couldn't happen to a nicer ****.

---

Thats McCreevy, the Commissioner who represents Ireland......oh wait now.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

Citing "popularity" as a reason is very odd. Popular with people or currency traders? I'm not sure how popular it would have been with either before we joined the eurozone, what with it not actually be a currency and all...

---

I don't think citing popularity as a reason for something getting a lot of votes is odd, that's how the system works.

I don't know any currency traders. I've not seen any opinion polls on the topic so can only base the popularity of the currency on talking to the people I know and, of them, Pineapple Stu is the only one I'm aware of who doesn't like the euro.

Charlie McCreevy: Bad for Ireland, Bad for Europe.

Worth readling, maybe a different angle for some of the Little Irelanders...(note by Little Irelander, I am not referring to all of the No side, just a subset of them, before high horses are dusted off).

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0b8b8cb6-3...0779fd2ac.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Student Mullet

The euro is quite popular, I don't think it took any bullying to get us to join.

---

Not the point. My point was that these doom and gloom scenarios were around before the Treaty, but we can now see that actually, they wouldn't have come about. Yet the Yes side continue with them ("Vote Yes for jobs!" as a quick off the top of my head example; it was the primary thrust of Martin's Irish Times article too), but with people now aware that they're nonsense, it's a completely ineffective tack. That's why Jebus' post was stupid, and that's a good part, I would say, of why the Treaty was rejected. Or, as I said in my original post -

Quote:

---

people are looking for more of a reason to vote something in than "Shut up and vote for it, idiot."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Worth readling, maybe a different angle for some of the Little Irelanders...(note by Little Irelander, I am not referring to all of the No side, just a subset of them, before high horses are dusted off).

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0b8b8cb6-3...0779fd2ac.html

---

Good article but it will be discounted by some as some sort of neo liberal FT plot.

Yes the very real problem of climate change and not allowing other Balkan countries to enter are stupid problems Stu. Not giving up pretending that Ireland isn't linked completely with Europe is a very serious problem however, Vote No For Pretence

I'm not taking issue with your point, I'm taking issue with your way of making it and pointing out that that's why the Treaty was rejected. Given that it was the first time anyone'd asked the Yes side what the whole thing was about, it was an arrogant, dismissive answer, a neat microcosm of the Yes campaign, which brings me back to me conclusions I made about that.

You asked has anyone from the Yes side in this thread even given a reason for voting Yes yet and I gave you two, how arrogant of me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

Good article but it will be discounted by some as some sort of neo liberal FT plot.

---

Or simply an opinion piece with the same value as every other opinion piece, pro and con.

Out of curiosity, I asked a Dutch friend there what the reaction was like in the Netherlands to our no vote. For context, he studied politics in university and now works for a Dutch political party. Here's his reply:

Quote:

---

Well to the government it's mostly considered an inconvenience since our parliament approved the treaty 2 weeks ago. Our Prime Minister is respecting the outcome though, stating the treaty is as good as dead now
the European Commission seemed less inclined to respect democracy lol
the people are cheering but most of them don't really know what the treaty is about if I may be so arrogant.
The media are pretty much neutral on the treaty itself, but fiercely anti-EU on how Brussels is handling it lots of free promotion for Ireland
they mostly oppose what is perceived as Brussels' arrogant approach of the issue. Most seem to have concluded that's also one of the reasons the Irish rejected it: too much too soon and too little respect for voter concerns

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

You asked has anyone from the Yes side in this thread even given a reason for voting Yes yet and I gave you two, how arrogant of me

---

And if you'd bothered to read my reply outlining my issues with your post, you wouldn't be dragging this thread into a circular discussion. It was easy to miss in fairness, huddled in there right next to yours. Suggest you go off and read it before random whining like the above again?

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

Or simply an opinion piece with the same value as every other opinion piece, pro and con.

---

I would hazard the opinion that that article has slightly more value that someone's view that the Treaty will lead all our children to be conscipted into a European army.

I wouldn't. The only difference is the level of scaremongering. It's just as short on actual facts.

House of Lords have just voted by quite a large majority for the UK Government to proceed with ratification

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

I wouldn't. The only difference is the level of scaremongering. It's just as short on actual facts.

---

I think you're being unfair on the article's author.

It's an honest opinion piece written from the perspective of a european living in China. Like you said about anyone's opinion, we can agree or disagree with him but not all opinions are equal and this one is well written by someone who seems to know what he's talking about and nowhere is it does he try to scare Irish voters or anyone else.

I don't doubt it's honest and I'm sure he does know what he's talking about, but he's done nothing to prove either of those things, which makes the article bog standard op-ed with about as much value as our voting machines.

I'd hardly call that "unfair". Writing an article devoid of facts could be considered the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

I don't doubt it's honest and I'm sure he does know what he's talking about, but he's done nothing to prove either of those things, which makes the article bog standard op-ed with about as much value as our voting machines.

I'd hardly call that "unfair". Writing an article devoid of facts could be considered the same thing.

---

Fair enough, there's no real argument between us.

It's a well written op-ed piece and doesn't claim to be anything else. I'll admit that I don't read the Financial Times as often as I could but I think that they do have a pretty heavy news section in the areas that they cover. Not every article needs to be a report on facts, there's room for interpretation and opinion as well and I quite like it when papers keep the two separate.

In any case, the reason I commented is because I think you're being unfair using the word 'scaremongering' to describe it. That aside, what either of us thought of the article isn't immediately relevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Student Mullet

Presumably this vote refers to a previous millennium, so the contradiction doesn't arise.

---

Capital is still the dominant factor in our lives. Rather than dismiss ideas you don't really understand...
Understand!

Back on topic, the campaign against a re-run should start right now and should collaborate with the hundreds of thousands who actively campaigned against the treaty across Europe and reach out to the Millions who opposes it in its various guises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Back on topic, the campaign against a re-run should start right now and should collaborate with the hundreds of thousands who actively campaigned against the treaty across Europe and reach out to the Millions who opposes it in its various guises.

---

Presumably a campaign against a re-run shouldn't begin until we've seen what is being put to us?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

We effectively denied Croatia the chance for economic growth by voting no, how about that for a reason to vote yes

---

:rolleyes:

Thats a load of @rse. There is absolutely no reason Croatia can't join the EU if they're dumb enough to want to now. You know its never going to be the gravy train it once was again.

As for your point on the environment, there was six words on environmental matters on the Treaty. The EU has historically been bad for the environment and the likes of Merkel and Sarkozy are definitely no friends of environmentalists. Berlusconi is hardly concerned with that type of thing either. He's far too busy pushing Italy back to Fascism.

Its actually laughable that people really believe that these "leaders" have our best interests at the heart of this treaty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

And if you'd bothered to read my reply outlining my issues with your post, you wouldn't be dragging this thread into a circular discussion. It was easy to miss in fairness, huddled in there right next to yours. Suggest you go off and read it before random whining like the above again?

---

Would pretty much by my reply to your own post.

Anyway on page 42 you say my points are scaremongering 'Vote Yes or the sky will fall down and are rubbish reasons, on this page you say you don't have a problem with my points, just the way I say them. Are you a confused individual, or do you like scaremongering?

To move away from Stu, do people in the No camp not see the benefits of Europe having a common policy on climate change (for one point) as being a greater reason to vote than a percieved loss of power for this island? Personally I think climate change is going to be, and is, the biggest issue on the world table at the moment and I was sold on a Yes vote from the moment I heard the Treaty would bring Europe together on one common policy for carbon cutting, something which in turn would put pressure on the US, which in turn could have a positive effect on China. A lot of ifs in there I know, but better that than a world sitting back hoping things will get better.

Edited for your points BohsPartisan
As per Croatia and the Balkan countries. I haven't read the part of the Treaty where it states it will be more difficult for these countries to join (not Croatia, it's been clarified that they're okay), but I've read reports stating it will be in the Irish Times and BBC.co.uk and I tend to trust these news outlets. And if I were Croatia I'd still want on the EU gravytrain while it lasts

As for climate change. Those words were a positive step if it gets countries moving, even slowly, on climate change. Berlusconi and Sarkozy (especially Sarkozy) won't be around for much longer, and even if they are and have signed up to the Treaty than many environmental issues will be dealt with in Brussels. Don't understand your apparant attitude of 'the big boys won't let you' given your political leanings towards a minority party

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bald Student

Presumably a campaign against a re-run shouldn't begin until we've seen what is being put to us?

---

Depends where you stand. I can see how Libertas and SF would be waiting to see whats on the table but there will be nothing of interest to most people who voted no. It will probably be some sort of concession on corporate tax and more assurances on the military.

However, lets remember that any concessions will be Ireland specific, we should continue to stand behind the right of every member state's citizens to vote on the treaty and if it is rejected by them too it should be scrapped completely.