That sounds bad as she is hopeless. He will never be FF leader.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Printable View
That sounds bad as she is hopeless. He will never be FF leader.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
...because there isn't any benefit to us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Even the date of the referendum is timed, so that the little Slovenians have to deal with the fall out if we vote the "wrong" way, rather than the all-powerful Sarkosy in July. :rolleyes:
Its being portrayed as if "you vote no, you're anti Europe" and that really shows the yes side have nothing to say.
Listening to Martin being singularly incapable of listing just one thing that would benefit Ireland was a revelation.
The same tactic again. :rolleyes:Quote:
Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan warned today that a No vote on the Lisbon Treaty would be a "step into isolation for Ireland."
Mr Lenihan, who made the comments after a meeting of EU finance ministers in Brussels, said a No vote would damage the Irish economy.
Earlier in the day, the Minister addressed the EU American Chamber of Commerce where he said that membership of the European Union had brought “countless benefits” for Ireland.
“We are the only Member State to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. We have an opportunity to demonstrate once again our strong commitment to Europe, which has been of such enormous benefit to Ireland, and our strong commitment to the principle of reform of institutions to improve their efficiency and effectiveness, said Mr Lenihan.
“A Yes vote to the Lisbon Treaty will ensure that Ireland remains at the centre of a more effective and efficient European Union. It is precisely this status that has brought us the high level of foreign direct investment that we have achieved thus far. I believe the single market will become even more important as we focus on export led economic growth to compensate for the readjustment of housing construction to more sustainable levels,” he said.
And this waffle benefits us in what way?? :confused:Quote:
Labour MEP, Proinsias De Rossa said that the treaty would safeguard and promote public services. “The Treaty makes considerable progress in the long-running campaign to achieve better protections for public services in the context of EU competition law,” said Mr De Rossa.
Brian "I never read the Treaty" Cowan doesn't help matters. Still though just because out elected leaders are idiots should not be a reason to vote No.
The debate on both sides has been fairly useless. Why the Yes side cannot come up with tangible benefits many on the No side just coming up standard anti-EU "think of the children" claims.
The ignorance of the No camp doesn't negate the ignorance of the Yes camp. At its most basic, there has to be an argument for, or there shouldn't be an argument at all.
Amending legislation to retain the status quo doesn't make sense; and let's be honest, has to be considered pretty shifty.
This treaty is all about power distribution for politicians, not countries or their citizens.
adam
I'm in favour of a federal Europe, a common defence force and any pan-European enterprise you care to mention, but I plan to vote against the treaty. What made up my mind was this quote from Patricia Callan of the Small Firms Association: "The Lisbon Treaty will safeguard our low corporate tax regime, our attractiveness as a destination for foreign direct investment and our flexible labour market."
I think we all understand what euphemisms like that coming from loathsome organisations like IBEC and the SFA actually mean. No wonder the employers' lobby is backing it so strongly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
Thats the first post that I've looked at and thought "that makes sense, he's calling it as most of the ordinary folk have seen it so far, and he's not trying to pull the urine out of another poster!"
I really want someone who supports voting "yes" to submit a tangible reason for doing so. GavinZac is trying to but the condescending nature of his posts get annoying after a while.
I plan to vote against the treaty. It actually has very little to do with the contents of the treaty.
Nice was voted against in a fair referendum here, and the vote was ignored. The EU constitution was voted against in Holland and France, and those votes have been ignored - the constitution repackaged as this treaty and kept away from referenda in every country but here. The politicians of Europe are not taking no for an answer. I think that attitude has to be beaten out of them.
For the record, me too, although I'd highlight the word defense. Chad isn't defense. And of course this treaty isn't about any of those things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheridan
You liked the 1980s? Would be interesting to hear your alternatives to the above :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheridan
I will vote Yes as I could not find anything in the Treaty I disagreed with. I have mainly ignored the politicians efforts.
BTW I have no problem with the EU peace enforcing. The UN is a lame duck & we complain too much about the US. I would approve the EU going to Sudan without UN approval.
That's a very odd way of putting it. Did you find anything you agreed with, anything that will tangibly benefit you or your country?Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Any chance of adding a poll to see which way people intend to vote? I know it's private but if people don't want to say then don't vote in it.
I think most people in this thread have already declared what way they will vote.
Not sure if this should be in th Lisbon Treaty thread but walking in this morning it became clear that both sides of the "argument" are treating the public with utter contempt.
Your choices are:
"Vote for Jobs" / "Vote for Ireland"
and
"People dies for your freedom" / "It will cost you"
These people are well funded and it is apparent that they certainly think that there are enough uninformed people out there to make a difference in this election.
Utterly feeble.
It comes back to one of my other ridiculous threads - we don't live in a democracy - if we did, there would be a much better way of avoiding this kind of intellectually moribund referendum
The EU needs changes for decision making & voting because there are 27 members now. I largely see the Treaty as an administrative device. The qualified majority voting changes seem realistic and fair. I am also happy that we keep control over tax policy. I can't remember what direct benefit the previous Treaties gave Ireland.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
The EU doesn't need change with regard to decision making. The current system used will protect Ireland's say. The majority voting system (and related voting rights) is weighed very heavily against Ireland/other small and new EU countries, and is very unfair.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
How is it very unfair? Why should a country as small as ours have anything near the same voting rights as Germany, France or Britain for example?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Voting power is not weighted against Ireland or any other small countries. Ourselves, as well as the other small countries, have a greater say per person than the bigger countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost