Lisbon Treaty

[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

To re-iterate, because there seem to be several posts like the above:

Between 1995 and 2007, the EU's population has increased by 25%, and will continue to rise as affluence reaches the east and more states are added. The current system, designed with 45% of the current population in mind, is simply unworkable at these population levels and future population levels. Currently, there needs to be a clear majority of 80 MILLION people for ratification of most types of decisions. 20 times our own population! How insignificant are we? The idea that something could be unsuccessful in ratification because "only" 329,000,000 million people make a decision is ludicrous, and will, unchecked, be the death of the EU.
Its not about our image or reputation, or specifically about the poor souls in Hungary. its about ourselves and everybody losing those benefits we have outlined, either by our forced exclusion from what is a member's club that we have no automatic right to be in or entitlement to benefit from, or as is far more likely, the benefits that would be lost by the ever decreasingly efficient EU which already suffers from accusations of sluggish bureaucracy. We have a choice: rectify the position that we were in whereby these sort of controls were set in stone/ink for a certain size of the EU, or risk losing the single most important politico-economic development in the history of our continent and shared culture, be it to expulsion or stagnation.

And with reference to: http://www.economist.com/world/europ...ry_id=10024471

[Macy]

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.

If you don't know then it's perfectly reasonable to vote no and maintain the status quo. It's up to the Yes side to convince people to change. If people read it and don't understand the treaty then it's the Yes side that has to convince the people the benefits of changing what they already hold.

I personally remain to be convinced, as the Yes side arguement particularly on the Government side pretty much remains "look what the EU has done for Ireland", and the "no side are lying". They can't come up with coherent arguments to refute the no sides suggestions, and I wouldn't trust Dick Roche as far as I could drop kick him (head down). Streamlining means decisions being made for Ireland that she has no control over - the veto means there's give and take on issues to make them acceptable. It's about giving power to the larger countries at the expense of the smaller ones, hiden behind an efficiency arguement imo.

Maybe then we consumers can enjoy some competition in our food market and enjoy the lower prices that the free market would ensure.

Off Topic I know but..... You believe the likes of tesco will pass on the lower prices, rather than increase profits? There is no record of that - prices to farmers have been going down in real terms for years, yet prices in the shops have been going up.

[GavinZac]

I personally remain to be convinced, as the Yes side arguement particularly on the Government side pretty much remains "look what the EU has done for Ireland", and the "no side are lying".

You've been bleating that for a couple of months now, I think you're just avoiding the real arguments. Like, you know, the post right before yours.

[dahamsta]

There's no doubt that the current system is flawed and should be repaired, but that's being used as a way of forcing us to give up far more than is needed in order to feed their own greed for more and more power. For that reason, I'll be voting no. Eventually they'll come back with a reasonable plan, and I'll vote yes. And not before.

adam

[GavinZac]

There's no doubt that the current system is flawed and should be repaired, but that's being used as a way of forcing us to give up far more than is needed in order to feed their own greed for more and more power. For that reason, I'll be voting no. Eventually they'll come back with a reasonable plan, and I'll vote yes. And not before.

adam

Who's "they"?

[Block G Raptor]

I'd imagine DaHamsta is reffering to GB, Spain, Germany and France. ie. the Countries who will benefit most in terms of power from the treaty

[Macy]

You've been bleating that for a couple of months now, I think you're just avoiding the real arguments. Like, you know, the post right before yours.

But I said that I don't believe the efficiency arguement in my post? And lets be fair, you keep bringing up our exclusion from the EU as a result of a No vote as much as I bring up the Yes side's basic arguement about being "good Europeans".

[holidaysong]

I'd imagine DaHamsta is reffering to GB, Spain, Germany and France. ie. the Countries who will benefit most in terms of power from the treaty

I don't know about the rest but Germany will see a drop in their voting power actually.

[holidaysong]

Off Topic I know but..... You believe the likes of tesco will pass on the lower prices, rather than increase profits? There is no record of that - prices to farmers have been going down in real terms for years, yet prices in the shops have been going up.

Inefficient farmers should be forced out of the market if they cannot survive. CAP protectionism measures to keep them in the market creates artificially high food prices in the EU. Perhaps food prices are going up for other reasons, such as inflation in general or increased transport costs linked to the increasing price of oil but they are still higher than they should be.
As for the likes of Tesco, it is up to competition between food supermarkets to minimise profits and allow the free market price to be passed onto the consumer. That is a different issue, though with cartels and and other price-fixing arrangements being illegal under EU competition laws so I don't see why that would not happen.

[pete]

I can't see how anyone thinks that having the likes of P Flynn in Brussels actually gives us more access to decision making. If Commissioner roles were so important would we trust it to the likes of him?

I agree that Dick Roche & the government "action" so far has been hopeless. It is up to everyone to educate themselves & make their own decisions. I may not agree with a lot of their policies but I trust established political parties over an unknown grouping like Libertas who won't tell us who is funding their campaign.

[Macy]

Inefficient farmers should be forced out of the market if they cannot survive. CAP protectionism measures to keep them in the market creates artificially high food prices in the EU. Perhaps food prices are going up for other reasons, such as inflation in general or increased transport costs linked to the increasing price of oil but they are still higher than they should be.

At a time when food security is such an issue, it would be folly to destroy the sector at this time, just on an economic view point. Should be about educating to eat locally produced goods, in season (and locally brought ideally too).

As for the likes of Tesco, it is up to competition between food supermarkets to minimise profits and allow the free market price to be passed onto the consumer. That is a different issue, though with cartels and and other price-fixing arrangements being illegal under EU competition laws so I don't see why that would not happen.

Eh, the fact it hasn't happened so far should be a good indicator as to why it won't happen in the future. The EU and others are too busy messing about with Microsoft to deal with the real competition issues.

I agree that Dick Roche & the government "action" so far has been hopeless

It beggars belief that they'd put Dick Roche to front the campaign, when they benched him for the General Election campaign because he's so brutal...

[pete]

It beggars belief that they'd put Dick Roche to front the campaign, when they benched him for the General Election campaign because he's so brutal...

Bertie wants to be everyones friend.

Sure Willie O'Dea is Minister for Disasters. Then again that does have a nice ring to it.

[lilywhite stu]

Its in the eurocrats interests to give themselves more power. You are never going to see a situation where the trend from Brussels will be to devolve more power to member states. when they talk about 'progress' in the european project they mean further federalisation and more centralisation of decision making. The fact that this is their motivation is enough reason for me to vote no.

Brussels holding so much power only becomes so undesireable when we consider the huge democratic deficit that exists in so many areas of the EU:

1. We are the only country that will get to vote on this treaty and Barroso, Merkel etc seem determined to browbeat us into accepting it.

2.the treaty proposes that we have one foreign minister and a president (that could end up being bertie!) is this really necessary?

3.The rotating presidency of the EU, the one area where all countres get an equal say and influence, is due to be abolished by the treaty.

4.The commission is not elected yet seeks more power by making their legislation easier to pass when it gets to the council of ministers.

5.The law that eminates from the EU is so pervaisive that we are forced to do things like charge national schools for the little water they use! No Irish government no matter how incompetent would ever try to do such a stupid thing as this in the name of a competition policy.

Very soon we are going to have less power over our own destiny than states in the US. The EU's competition policy already places more restrictions on us than Washington places over Kentucky or Indiana or any other US state. However we are an actual country, Kentucky is not nor never has been so why should we accept less soverignty than a place like that? we won our independence and therefore deserve our soverignty.

I think it is good that Ireland joined the EU back in the 70s but at that time we joined a common market. Political union is a different matter altogether. The goverenments of Europe clearly don't think their populaitons want it because the won't give them the chance to vote on the treaty. i really don't think there is anything wrong with saying that we would like a common market and a high level of cooperation on issues that we have in common but that we do not want to (nor should we have to) surrender all to Brussels.

We do not owe them anything. Vote No

[Block G Raptor]

Its in the eurocrats interests to give themselves more power. You are never going to see a situation where the trend from Brussels will be to devolve more power to member states. when they talk about 'progress' in the european project they mean further federalisation and more centralisation of decision making. The fact that this is their motivation is enough reason for me to vote no.

[...]

Brilliant Post!!. I've been saying for a long time that Brussels wants a "United States of Europe" but from what you say about Kentucky and Indiana it seems that even this won't satisfy the Eurocrats. our Democratic Right to have our say on how our country is run is being eroded by this treaty. Membership of the EU could soon be the "New Colonialism" with foreign politicians making the decisions that effect our daily lives more and more and the power of our own Elected Government having less and less power at home, let alone in Europe. If you want to remain in a Democratic Society VOTE NO!!

[GavinZac]

If you want to remain in a Democratic Society VOTE NO!!

You know we elect MEPs, right? This isn't Lordship.

Its interesting that in the same breath you advocate Irish votes counting for more than French ones, and yet simultaneously claim the defense of democracy.

[pete]

The EU seems to create a strange situation.

I don't like big government but I am voting Yes even though it gives the EU more power.. Socialists who would normally like big government are against more EU power.

[Block G Raptor]

You know we elect MEPs, right? This isn't Lordship.

Yes I do know we elect MEP's but the fact is that these MEP's will have less of a say in how our country fares in the EU if Lisbon is passed.

Its interesting that in the same breath you advocate Irish votes counting for more than French ones, and yet simultaneously claim the defense of democracy.

Yes but I'd rather Irish MEP's Voted for by the Irish people had more of a say in Irish Affairs than French MEP's voted for by French People

[holidaysong]

3.The rotating presidency of the EU, the one area where all countres get an equal say and influence, is due to be abolished by the treaty.

To be replaced by an 18 month presidency shared by three nations, with each nation leading the presidency for 6 months each. This ensures that any one country doesn't get completely bogged down in EU affairs for 6 months to the detriment of their own national affairs.

Where does the equal say and influence get abolished?

[mypost]

If Commissioner roles were so important would we trust it to the likes of him?

It is up to everyone to educate themselves & make their own decisions. I trust established political parties over an unknown grouping like Libertas who won't tell us who is funding their campaign.

Most of the electorate don't know what they're voting on, yet we're told that we have to pass it, and we'll be a laughing stock around Europe if we don't.

The only laughing from around Europe from a No vote, will be at Bertie, Barroso and co, for a change.

To be replaced by an 18 month presidency shared by three nations, with each nation leading the presidency for 6 months each.

It will be replaced by a 30-month Presidency for one nation, that will be a carve-up for the big 5, starting with France in July.

[GavinZac]

Most of the electorate don't know what they're voting on, yet we're told that we have to pass it, and we'll be a laughing stock around Europe if we don't.

With rubbish like "Lucinda Creighton wants a European Army. She's Voting Yes to Lisbon. Are you?" embarrassment doesn't seem to be something Libertas are worried about.