Lisbon Treaty

[Poor Student]

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.

That's so mid 1900's. We live in a post-sovereigntist age where nations can achieve their aspirations without narrow definitions of sovereignty. For example, we've already benefitted ourselves by giving up some soveriengty to the EU. It's not the be all and end all. Cataluynia gets on fine without full sovereignty. It's not an aim in itself, it's something that needs to be balanced up among other considerations.

[pete]

-The 26 counties' neutraility will be abolished and the military must be made availible to the EU for peace keeping and defense.
[/B].

Not to be pedantic but there are 27 members. Please tell me where in the Treaty out neutrality is abolished?Are you suggesting we are mandated to provide troops? If you are going to invent things try to be a bit more inventive.

[SligoBrewer]

Not to be pedantic but there are 27 members.

I think he means the 26 counties of Ireland.

[jebus]

I'm voting Yes for the simple reason that Sinn Fein and the Catholic Church are telling me to vote No. Democracy doesn't work people!

[mypost]

That's so mid 1900's. We live in a post-sovereigntist age where nations can achieve their aspirations without narrow definitions of sovereignty. For example, we've already benefitted ourselves by giving up some soveriengty to the EU. It's not the be all and end all.

This would be akin to Tibet giving up it's sovereignty to China. Wait a minute........

For the first 20 years of our membership, the EU didn't want to know about/help us. Telling us how we've benefitted from the EU carries no weight in this treaty. This is about how Europe shall be governed. It's about big nations wielding their weight over smaller ones. It's about losing a commissioner, and therefore influence in Europe. It's an undemocratic joke, where only one country is allowed to vote, because the other countries would reject it.

As one Danish MEP stated at a seminar earlier in the year, it's a demand of "Sign, read afterwards".

[holidaysong]

-The 26 counties' neutraility will be abolished and the military must be made availible to the EU for peace keeping and defense.

That is a blatant lie.

I seen a sticker on a signpost yesterday saying, 'Lisbon Treaty: If you don't know, vote no!' - Who are the fools who are endorsing this completely ignorant way of voting? Surely 'If you don't know', then reading the treaty to find out what it is all about is a far more rational response than voting no as a knee jerk reaction? The 'Vote no' campaign seems to be based 100% on scaremongering. I'm surprised more people cannot see through this to be honest.

[SligoBrewer]

The 'Vote no' campaign seems to be based 100% on scaremongering. I'm surprised more people cannot see through this to be honest.

What is the 'yes' campaign based on may I ask?

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/fro...158498840.html

[pete]

I's about losing a commissioner, and therefore influence in Europe. It's an undemocratic joke, where only one country is allowed to vote, because the other countries would reject it.

Different countries have different rules. Who are we to tell any country that they have to hold a referendum in conflict with their own constitution?

BTW we lose a commissioner 5 years out of every 15. Surely you are not suggesting create some mickey mouse Commissioner position just so can have 27. What happens when we have say 35 member?

[mypost]

Different countries have different rules. Who are we to tell any country that they have to hold a referendum in conflict with their own constitution?

Under the earlier draft, roughly half of the countries wished to hold referendums, including the UK. France and Holland did, and rejected it. Now those countries are being punished by the EU, by not been allowed to hold referendums. We only have it, because it's required under our current laws. If it's passed, we won't be allowed to hold any more EU referenda, and our right to our turn to hold the Presidency of the European Union.

BTW we lose a commissioner 5 years out of every 15. Surely you are not suggesting create some mickey mouse Commissioner position just so can have 27. What happens when we have say 35 member?

We hold our commissioner to maintain our say in Brussels. Why should we give up our right to have one, because the EU decided to admit more members? If they want to bring in 35 members, then each of them is entitled to a commissioner. Don't want that; it's very simple, don't admit new members.

[Block G Raptor]

I've one question for the Yes camp. whats wrong with the status quo? I'm assuming if the treaty is rejected then nothing will change? also all this scaremongering "oh we'll be thrown out of the EU if we vote no" is bull

[holidaysong]

I've one question for the Yes camp. whats wrong with the status quo? I'm assuming if the treaty is rejected then nothing will change? also all this scaremongering "oh we'll be thrown out of the EU if we vote no" is bull

Nothing changing is the problem. We need to streamline the decision making process within the EU so that it is easier and quicker to get decisions made. It is impractical in a union of 27 member states to have decision making rules in place that were designed for 6 and 12 members. For one country to be allowed to have a veto on such a wide variety of issues is nonsense. They hold up the entire process and a lot of time and effort then has to go into either redrafting or convincing the country in question to drop their veto. I think retaining our veto on issues such as justice, defence and taxation is more than enough (and indeed I would insist on it).

And of course we wouldn't get thrown out of the EU.

[holidaysong]

We hold our commissioner to maintain our say in Brussels. Why should we give up our right to have one, because the EU decided to admit more members? If they want to bring in 35 members, then each of them is entitled to a commissioner. Don't want that; it's very simple, don't admit new members.

There are other ways of maintaining your say in Brussels. I don't see how a token commissioner in some made up postion will give us any more of a say.

[mypost]

We need to streamline the decision making process within the EU so that it is easier and quicker to get decisions made. It is impractical in a union of 27 member states to have decision making rules in place that were designed for 6 and 12 members. For one country to be allowed to have a veto on such a wide variety of issues is nonsense. They hold up the entire process and a lot of time and effort then has to go into either redrafting or convincing the country in question.

We don't need to streamline the process. Take any coalition government across Europe. They don't agree with each other when it comes to policymaking, and the process waits until a compromise has been reached. Yet they still function. The EU is the same except on a larger scale. The difference here is, that some countries will not get a say in how policies are formed, and will be the political equivalent of "yes" men. That benefits France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and England. Noone else.

[holidaysong]

What is the 'yes' campaign based on may I ask?

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/fro...158498840.html

I have never and will never vote for Fianna Fáil. Thankfully I can see past party politics to see that the Yes vote is best for Ireland and the EU.

It is ironic that you link to this article because in it, Bertie licks up to the farmers (as he often does). If I was a farmer I might actually vote against the Treaty due to the way the CAP is being slowly but surely torn away. I'm not a farmer however, and I think the sooner the CAP is scrapped the better. Maybe then we consumers can enjoy some competition in our food market and enjoy the lower prices that the free market would ensure. I think the farmers who just sit around and wait for the cheque from Brussels will get a hard landing when the CAP is finally rolled up and for Bertie to lie to them saying that the EU is great for them really is quite unfair. The benefits of the EU as a whole to farmers, and the benefits of the Lisbon Treaty should not be confused but I can see why a farmer would vote against the Lisbon Treaty as a protest against the current operating of the CAP.

[holidaysong]

We don't need to streamline the process. Take any coalition government across Europe. They don't agree with each other when it comes to policymaking, and the process waits until a compromise has been reached. Yet they still function. The EU is the same except on a larger scale. The difference here is, that some countries will not get a say in how policies are formed, and will be the political equivalent of "yes" men. That benefits France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and England. Noone else.

Any country can propose legislation. They may not get it passed though if others do not vote for it. I don't see how this is different to a party in a national parliament proposing legislation and it not getting passed.

[Poor Student]

This would be akin to Tibet giving up it's sovereignty to China. Wait a minute........

No it wouldn't. That issue has nothing to do with this debate.

For the first 20 years of our membership, the EU didn't want to know about/help us. Telling us how we've benefitted from the EU carries no weight in this treaty.

I'm simply pointing out sovereignty is not the be all and end all of things.

It's about losing a commissioner, and therefore influence in Europe.

The commissioners are supposed to work for the good of the entire union not their state's interests.

It's an undemocratic joke, where only one country is allowed to vote, because the other countries would reject it.

Different states have different consitutional set ups. We live in an age of indirect democracy, the people's wishes are exercised through their elected officials.

[GavinZac]

I've one question for the Yes camp. whats wrong with the status quo? I'm assuming if the treaty is rejected then nothing will change? also all this scaremongering "oh we'll be thrown out of the EU if we vote no" is bull

Something has to change. Either they'll be forced to go away and attempt to write another million words to try to bring sanity to the system, or they'll think "hmm, so the the ungrateful little *******s are done being the highest net receiver in the history of the union and now they want out? off with them. The citizens of Budapest and Bucharest wish them a safe journey across the Atlantic."

Under the earlier draft, roughly half of the countries wished to hold referendums, including the UK. France and Holland did, and rejected it. Now those countries are being punished by the EU, by not been allowed to hold referendums.

The EU cannot direct its member states to do anything of the sort. If the French people's elected EU representatives were foisting something like this on them unwanted, you don't imagine there would be a slighty furore? This is the country that riots because of arrests.

We hold our commissioner to maintain our say in Brussels. Why should we give up our right to have one, because the EU decided to admit more members? If they want to bring in 35 members, then each of them is entitled to a commissioner. Don't want that; it's very simple, don't admit new members.

More commissioners, more bureaucracy for the same effect? Everybody having more just results in the same loss of power and greater expense.

I've one question for the anti-treaty camp. You place Ireland's well being ahead of Germany or Poland's, right?

[mypost]

Something has to change. Either they'll be forced to go away and attempt to write another million words to try to bring sanity to the system, or they'll think "hmm, so the the ungrateful little *******s are done being the highest net receiver in the history of the union and now they want out? off with them. The citizens of Budapest and Bucharest wish them a safe journey across the Atlantic."

More commissioners, more bureaucracy for the same effect? Everybody having more just results in the same loss of power and greater expense.

The EU's problem, not ours.

I've one question for the anti-treaty camp. You place Ireland's well being ahead of Germany or Poland's, right?

You think as an Irishman, that we shouldn't?

When voting on it, the French and Dutch electorate put their own well being ahead of everyone else's. Problem??

[GavinZac]

The EU's problem, not ours.

We are the EU. Then again, you compared the EU in Ireland to China in Tibet, so I don't know why I'm bothering

You think as an Irishman, that we shouldn't?

Of course not. Whats the bloody point of participating in the European Union if you're only looking out for your own back? If other countries took that attitude, where would we be?

When voting on it, the French and Dutch electorate put their own well being ahead of everyone else's. Problem??

No, they didn't. They were voting on a constitution for the European Union. Apart from "it" being a different vote, I would imagine they weren't so small minded to think the world revolved around them while voting and actually gave some consideration to what the referendum was in the context of, the well being of the Union. However out here on our little island you'll get the odd lad who doesn't really get how the outside world works and because he's ever so nationalistic will align himself with the likes of Sinn Féin to prove it.

[SligoBrewer]

I have to say, the arguments of GavinZac and the UCD lads on here has been then most educated of any persons I have heard thus far. They have convinced me from the No camp to the Yes camp, however, I can't vote. Lovely world we live in eh?