Lisbon Treaty

[eamo1]

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.

[superfrank]

The No side are highlighting the reality of what we're voting on

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.

Losing our commissioner for a full EU term, and our voting weights halved is not detrimental to Ireland.

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.

That we will lose influence in Europe, if we send the Treaty back to Brussels unratified

That's a bit of scare-mongering from the Yes side. I don't believe it for a second.

That we need to be part of a strong Europe to challenge other countries.

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.

That we need to say yes to attract foreign investment, at a time when companies are already closing plants and moving them overseas, or else overlooking us completely. This issue will continue regardless of what outcome there is next week.

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.

They are right on one thing however. The "Europe has been good to us" whine. Sure, even the No side acknowledge that. This referendum is about the future of the European Union, not the past.

More Yes scare-mongering but if people actually go and read the treaty they will know what it's about.

It's simple: don't listen to these lobby groups, just read the damned thing and make up your mind that way.

[Poor Student]

Wrong.

While every country will lose a commissioner, we have to zoom in on Ireland's. The loss of a commissioner for any period, let alone a full EU election term, means that other countries will decide policies for us during that term, with no Irish voice at the table.

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.

How many countries constitute the 55%/65% waffle?? Who are they?? How will it be affected on the acceptance of new states??

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.

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.

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.

Explain why the Bold bit is needed.

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.

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.

Yeah, and France and Germany will be equally affected by the changes. What's your point?

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.

Er, what? How's this relevant?

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.

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.

[BohsPartisan]

Best reason I heard so far to vote Yes is that we need a strong united Europe. Russia, China & India are gaining power & influence every year & like it or not reality dictates that we need to be part of a one group or the other.

You know where that line of thinking always ends.

Are we voting on legalising abortion? Strange that, I must have missed that bit in it.

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.

[mypost]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Also, you're ignoring that four countries can block any QMV decision.

That makes a mockery of QMV. Either there is QMV, or there isn't.

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.

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.

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.

But you haven't explained why we need it.

France and Germany will be equally affected by the changes. What's your point?

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.

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.

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.

[osarusan]

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.

You may not have brought it up in your arguments, but others who support a 'no' not have brought it up.

On the previous page you disagreed with micls that there had been scare-mongering from both sides, saying that

The No side are highlighting the reality of what we're voting on

The 'no' side is everybody who wants a 'no' vote, not just people who agree with your reasons.

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?

[mypost]

Either this treaty is about abortion and euthanasia, 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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'm like a broken record at this stage.

[mypost]

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.

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.

[BohsPartisan]

The big countries are entitled to their say

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?

[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?

You're asking the wrong man. Why was the Nice Treaty voted on again here when it was rejected the first time?

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.

[BohsPartisan]

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.

[NeilMcD]

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.

[Student Mullet]

In essence it achieves everything Hitler, Napoleon and Caesar dreamed of only through deception and slight of hand instead of brute force.

I'm quoting this for posterity.

[Da Real Rover]

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.

[osarusan]

Obviously those issues are big to you, and if they are, fair enough.

You haven't answered the question though.

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)

[kingdom hoop]

(You could answer the question which is in bold)

Of course he could choose to ignore it either. Surely not though.....

[Poor Student]

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.

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.

These two comments are indicitave of the hysterics and histrionics of the no campaign, particularly the one by BohsPartisan. Unbelievable.

Mypost,I'll reply to your other responses when I get time.

[BohsPartisan]

These two comments are indicitave of the hysterics and histrionics of the no campaign, particularly the one by BohsPartisan. Unbelievable.

Mypost,I'll reply to your other responses when I get time.

Ha.
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"

[Student Mullet]

Who is involved in histrionics and scaremongering?

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.