Printable View
I'm in favour of a European Confederation and the total dismantling of the nation-state, but I'm utterly opposed to ceding any power to the anti-democratic and neo-liberal EU. It's bad enough trying to defend ourselves against the clowns in Leinster House with the inadequate democratic means we have at present.
There are some vocal anti-European elements to the no vote. There's also a substantial proportion of it which is merely unhappy with the status quo in the EU. Sometimes, it can be hard to tell them apart using just a couple of sentences. I don't think the proportion has changed any.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Yes, obviously there are some anti-EU types in the anti-Lisbon campaign but to brand all No-campaigners as anti-EU is like branding all opposition party voters as anti-Ireland. Close-minded.
Anyway I'm against Lisbon, as I can't see it doing any considerable good for the country and at the same time, I'd be very suss about giving more law-making power to a body that have shown 0 through their steamrolling of the first No-vote - that they simply don't care what we think.
A Banker blames the people for the banking crisis. :D:rolleyes:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...250995433.htmlQuote:
The general public played a role as well, through participation in the property bubble and becoming “amateur landlords” and by voting against the Lisbon Treaty.
“The very public rejection of Lisbon by a number of media personalities and public commentators in some instances was evidence itself of a sort of hubris and pride to which the nation had in some way fallen victim. That mistake must not be repeated in October.”
The crisis unfolded because the world banking system is inter-connected. Once it collapses in one country, it's a domino-effect. Voting against Lisbon is not a mistake, and it is not responsible for the current banking situation.
The E.U has been the greatest peace process in the world,that was one of its original aims,to not have another world war.It has done that and more so there is many good points to the E.U.However there has to be controls and limits on its powers.So i like the E.U BUT im voting NO as i think a better deal can be reached for the benefit of everyone.A better deal is different then the "guarantees" we have been given which are NOT legally binding.
Peter Sutherland's rather predictable view. :o
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...251304912.htmlQuote:
THE GOVERNMENT should be able to spend exchequer funding on a campaign to encourage people to back changes it proposes to the Constitution, former EU commissioner, Peter Sutherland has said.
“This seems to be an unwarranted interference with the government of the country,” Mr Sutherland told the Institute of European Affairs during a speech on the October Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Politicians in favour of constitutional change were entitled to persuade the public to adopt a proposal “individually as private citizens or collectively as members of a political party or of the government”, the judge had said.
The 2008 Lisbon referendum had had “serious negative effects” on Ireland’s image: “Few could understand what we had done and who could blame them?”
When there are riots rather than flowers given to Ireland's embassies, and Irish businesses and pubs are attacked by angry mobs across Europe, then I'll agree that Ireland's image has had "serious negative effects".
Until such time, Mr Sutherland is a tired old (ex-GATT secretary) politician who still believes that the EU is the best thing since the wheel was invented, and that anyone who isn't eternally committed to it is a waste of time. The serious negative effects applies to the political class rather than the social class.
We keep hearing the yes side admit that they got things badly wrong last time and that things will be so different this time. Yet when they start to present their case it appears that this campaign will be seemless from the last. Here we have Sutherland going on about No lies while at the same time presenting the protocals as having the same status as the Treaty itself and again presenting the biggest lie of all and that is the anybody that votes No is anti European. Why isn't Sutherland calling on the media to edit out Yes lies?
If you can't beat them, join them.
I'm not sure why the Yes side should tell the truth (other than moral obligation) when lying served the No side so well last time.
Lets be honest, it's likely that most of the electorate won't go into this referendum knowing much more than they did last time. Therefore spinning sensationalist yarns that engender fear is the best way to secure their vote.
The Yes side isn't "joining" anyone, they lied as much if not more than the No side last time around; the only difference being their failure despite this.
A novel approach I know, but perhaps if everyone told the truth people might be able to decide for themselves. It's this thing called democracy...
As a hardline No voter, I didn't lie on the loss of a commissioner. The commissioner issue is still as valid now as it was then. I didn't lie on the slashing of our voting weights. And I didn't lie on the Presidency issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
The Presidency is non-negotiable as far as I'm concerned. I can't vote for a treaty that proposes one person, rather than rotating states, to be nominated as head of the EU, just to please the Yanks and the Ruskis. The bloke won't even have to be elected. At best, it tears up the current Presidency arrangements where we have the opportunity to set the agenda during our turn to hold it, with full autonomy to take decisions and represent the Union. At worst, it is a dangerous experiment, that could trigger war in the EU down the line. Europe's history has seen many wars triggered by elites holding too much power and abusing it against their own people and others. Such a position wasn't part of the Nice Treaty, and it would have to be dropped if I was to consider voting for a treaty in the future.
The loss of a commissioner (some of the time) was one of the biggest red herrings of them all. They're not allowed to represent their own countries interests anyway! Now we're going to be stuck with too many of them :(
TDs are supposed to be the same way. I don't think anyone has mentioned it to Jackie Healy-Rae. Or Micky Martin. Or Bertie Ahern. Or... any of them.
This has been pointed out numerous times in the thread. Not only that, but the commissionerships were going to be rotated on equal terms between all states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
Ireland losing more voting power is another red herring. Our already miniscule vote would be slightly reduced in order to refine the voting system and have it reflect population size more accurately.
The above two points are deliberately exaggerated and contorted to obfuscate the matter.
So if it's slightly reduced, it means even less power than what we already have. It's not mine, nor anyone else's fault that this country can only hold 4 million people, (tens of thousands from bigger states) and we shouldn't be punished for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Student
IBEC
Business leaders like political leaders see what's right for them, rather than what's right for the country.
So despite the expansion of the EU we should still have the same voting rights? What if the existing members had taken the same attitude when we joined?
YesQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
Their problem.Quote:
What if the existing members had taken the same attitude when we joined?
It's the responsibilty of the Irish government to get the best EU deal for us, as Spain and Poland did during the negotiations, not lie down and merely take what was on offer. If that annoys other states, that's fine. An Irish PM is firstly responsible to his people, not other EU leaders.
1) More opinion stated as fact. Any references to support this?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
2) Whats best in the short-term is very different to whats good in the long-term
Also, life isn't about binary options. Gains in one area can result in bigger loses elsewhere.
..Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
:oQuote:
Originally Posted by me
So given that no country would ever join on that basis, the EU/EEC should never have expanded whatsoever?
Being responsible to the people of Ireland isn't the same as getting the best deal for Ireland.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
As Mr. A has pointed out, nothing would ever get done if everyone suited themselves.