|
|
Post by Jim on Sept 21, 2009 12:41:43 GMT
I've always been in favour of a more integrated european state, but if its the exact same treaty as last time, if I were in the Republic I would vote no even though I half heartidly defended it last time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Sept 21, 2009 12:46:29 GMT
Why on earth are they having another vote?? Are they just going to keep having these votes on the treaty until there is a yes? On that alone I would vote NO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Sept 21, 2009 16:05:01 GMT
I would still vote NO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Republic on Sept 21, 2009 16:19:56 GMT
I am in favour of an integrated economic union. I don't want to see a federal super-state.
On the basis of the treaty, I would be a yes voter. The treaty is relatively harmless if one looks at it. It makes the EU more transparent and will help it to run more smoothly.
However, I have a big dilemma. It has been rejected already in Ireland. That, combined with the fact that no other countries are allowed to vote on it, leaves me feeling that I should vote NO on principle. It is a difficult decision, and I am still undecided on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harry on Sept 21, 2009 16:28:56 GMT
Ulster Still Says NO!!! ;D
I hope it is rejected again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on Sept 21, 2009 16:41:18 GMT
;D does this look like a face that cares?  ?? Seriously though, I noted when I was in Dublin it was saturated with boards on lamposts from both the yes and no lobby. Don't know about the people in the republic but it confused me  |
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Sept 21, 2009 22:44:10 GMT
I'd vote no, partly because Setanta and others I have issues with parts of the treaty and partly because I agree with Republic that as the treaty has already been rejected that should have ended this passing this particular hot potato back to the Irish electorate until they can get them to swallow it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Republic on Sept 22, 2009 16:04:33 GMT
[/quote]
hold on, the treaty increases the power of the European parliament, which IS democratically elected. This will make the EU more democratic, not less.
Admittedly, the way they are going about it is not so democratic, and therein lies the dilemma.
Loss of national vetos is not neccessarily a bad thing. Democracy means that majority rules. What if Poland decide to use their veto to hold up something that will benefit all of us in Europe?
That is not democratic.
Voting NO leaves us with the monstrosity that is the Nice treaty. Lisbon is actually better than Nice, I'm surprised SF can not see that.
Although your default position towards the EU seems to be NO.
No surrender maybe?
|
|
|
|
Post by Republic on Sept 22, 2009 16:06:43 GMT
I've taken some stuff from other sites. Well worth a read for the undecided, unsure or slightly confused.
*
1) Ireland must have a referendum any time more competencies are conferred to the EU
2)Yes our voting weight is 0.8% compared to France & Germany's increased weight BUT Lisbon also introduces extra safeguards such as the minimum blocking clause so if even 4 countries oppose the proposal, it's scrapped.
And, for proposals to pass, the countries supporting it must represent
A)55% of all the EU member states
and
B)65% of the population.
A) is put in place to stop all the bigger countries ganging up on the smaller countries
and
B) is in place to stop the smaller countries ganging up on the bigger countries.
|
|
|
|
Post by Republic on Sept 22, 2009 16:12:15 GMT
I took this post from boards.ie
_____________________________________________________
I would encourage anyone interested to click through to the first link and watch the video, let it sink in.
Admittedly, I watched it burst out laughing and then went to show my girlfriend the "great video" that I had just seen. It is, without a shadow of a doubt, hilarious.
What is not so funny, however, is that whoever made the video put time and effort into it, and is absolutely serious in not only his beliefs but also in getting these beliefs across to others. You'll note that there isn't any shots of Dublin City, Cork City, Galway City etc in the video, all roaming shots of Good Ol' OIreland, fiddledee-idle-dee music and a wee Paddy voice reminiscing of the times now gone.
I reflected on this and recognised that this person, their beliefs, their view of Ireland and their apparent aims for this country in no way align with mine...yet...we're on the same "side" in this referendum.
Why is that?
I then came across the second thread/second link and had a read through this leaflet that is being distributed throughout OUR country by an organisation comprised mainly of, and headed by, Nigel Farage and the UKIP. Everyone considering voting No in this referendum should be embarrassed by that leaflet. If you haven't had a look at it, do so now.
It is choc full of fabrications and horrific, blatant scaremongering, from the disgusting lies it tells throughout its pages to the images that grace the borders. We see the "EU Bulldozer", bulldozing what exactly I do not know as if they really wanted to force this through in such a rough fashion, it would be done by now. Images of syringes threatening "EUthanasia" and my favourite of all, the sad ol' paddy farmer with the noose of red tape around his neck.
I am absolutely disgusted at the thought of these arriving on people's doorsteps, we all should be, regardless of which way we're inclined on the debate. This is from the UKIP, remember. They are making, publishing and distributing these leaflets at their own cost, and sending them into our country on the side of the "No" vote.
If you're planning to vote No, do the UKIP represent your views? Do you believe them to be acting in Ireland's best interest here, in our economy's best interest?
Similarly, again, does the video above represent your views of Ireland?
I spent the day thinking about what I had seen and read, and how it conflicts with my own views. I took stock of who else is pushing this hardcore scaremongering BS down people's throats. We have COIR, Sinn Fein, Eiregobrach, Libertas & more. What are these organisations actual agenda's here? Why are they opposed to Lisbon? They're not giving real reasons, they're spreading lies and are printing posters at huge costs to do so, why is that?
I had a good link sent to me by Prinz, linking to an article Declan Ganley wrote in 2003 about the EU and it's supposed flaws, which went on to say how we should have an American style United States of Europe.
This halted me in my tracks, to be quite honest. A United States of Europe is exactly what I do not want to see the EU turn into.
So we have COIR, the staunch christian pro-lifers who are filling our streets with trendy posters full of lies (like the heart shaped one), quite clearly pushing their own agenda. We have Libertas back on the scene, who was flanked by Caroline Simons, a staunch pro-lifer and another plethora of questionable characters, headed by Mr.Questionable himself Declan Ganley. We have Sinn Fein who, well, we all know who Sinn Fein are, where their roots lie and what they would like to see happen Ireland and then smaller nutjob, anti-abortion/pro-life centralised groups such as Eiregobrach.
Not one of these group's beliefs align with my own, every single one of them is pushing lies on our streets yet for what, what is their agenda here? Why are people trusting their words? Not ONE of those organisations deserves an ounce of trust, especially Sinn Fein. What good have they done the Republic?
The people of Ireland gave Sinn Fein a go in Europe and look at the diabolical record Mary Lou has made for herself. Ugh, is all I will say on that.
I'm an atheist who is pro-choice, pro-gay rights and have absolutely no interest in an United Ireland at the moment, recognising how absolutely infeasible the idea is for the foreseeable future, how am I on the same "side" as these people? I've never voted for them before, why am I essentially "supporting" them in voting with them on this?
I decided to have a look at my concerns with Lisbon and the EU earlier as a result. None of the BS on the posters represent my concerns, so I wrote to Scofflaw on the matter seeking some advice. As I explained, I am NOT anti-EU and dread to be seen as such. I am proud that our country is a member of this union, though I have said otherwise in the heat of the moment after comments from EU leaders previously, I would not have it any other way currently. I appreciate what our membership has done for our country and what it will do in the future, both for our economy and for us Irish citizens. We can now travel and work throughout the EU pretty much hassle free, that's something we should all treasure as far as I'm concerned.
However, I am happy with the EU the way it is. I recognise the need for a reformation of the structure so that we may have a more efficient EU, however my fears lay in
A: Further "drastic" enlargement
B: Further political integration
and
C: Accession of states such as Turkey.
I asked Scofflaw on all three points and received great answers that have calmed my fears for the future of the EU.
I hope it won't be a problem, but I'll paste the relevant parts as I believe others have similar concerns.
Question:
I have to say I'm not anti-EU. I recognise the immense benefit it has served our country and economy and will do in the future. I am, however, opposed to any further drastic enlargement, the likes of which we have seen in the past, particularly with regards to Turkey.
Answer:
Personally, I think that was very much a historical once-off. The timing was largely dictated by Putin - up to that point accession for Eastern Europe had been proceeding at the usual leisurely pace, but when Putin started flexing Russia's muscles, it suddenly became urgent to bring Eastern Europe into the EU rather than have them fall back into Russian orbit. In a sense, that explains both Nice and Lisbon - the former in a hurry, the latter to rebalance the democratic deficit created by Nice.
The accession of the Eastern European countries was a solution to a problem - Turkish accession, on the other hand, is simply a problem.
Question:
Lisbon doesn't actually provide an entrance route for Turkey, does it? I'm aware of various quotes regarding enlargement, but what does the treaty actually say regarding the further enlargement of the EU? If, for example, it were to look likely that Turkey might be in a state to join, we can and will have the opportunity to vote against it, am I right in saying that? I suppose the question would be will we get a say with regards to future accession, more than just through our "representatives"?
Answer:
No, Lisbon doesn't provide an entrance route for Turkey. Turkey could accede under either Nice or Lisbon - a lot of people have the vague feeling that Nice contains some kind of cap on the EU's membership, but it doesn't.
What Lisbon does do is change the way QMV voting operates (without much changing the weights, despite COIR), the way the Parliament's seats are allocated, and the way the composition of the Commission is set. All those changes are actually about making it so that the accession of a new member state is automatically factored into the system, instead of, as at present, requiring a round of horse-trading about voting weights and seat allocations.
However, none of that is necessary for enlargement. When Sarkozy said "no enlargement without Lisbon", he was making a purely political statement of intent - in other words, saying that he wouldn't go through the horse-trading again. A different French president might have a different view. If Iceland applied for membership, it would happen, Lisbon or no Lisbon.
Turkish accession is, to be honest, quite improbable right now anyway. The Economist reckons not before 2023 at the earliest, based on the fact that there are 35 'chapters' of negotiations to be concluded - of which only one has been concluded since 1987, while 8 are formally blocked from even being negotiated because Turkey won't recognise Cyprus - and also on the fact that it's currently opposed by France, Germany, Austria, Cyprus, Holland, Hungary...and large majorities in several countries.
There's no mechanism whereby we'd require a referendum on Turkish accession - we've never had one on any other accession. Given the strength of popular feeling, though, I suspect referendums would be likely both here and abroad.
The short answer, anyway, is no, there's nothing in Lisbon that paves the way for Turkish accession. Indeed, by increasing the acquis, and specifically by allowing the EU to accede to the ECHR, it probably raises the bar to Turkish entry by a respectable degree.
Question:
I am, however, put off by the lengthening of the term of EU President. It turns a somewhat small role, into an official figurehead. I know they won't have any further power, I'm just uncomfortable with the entire concept of having an EU President serving for such a long term. It is, in my view, a move towards a United States of Europe, something I'm against (yet Ganley is in favour of).
Answer:
Technically, it's a 2.5 year term, extensible once to 5 years - and the current situation is really one of 1.5 year joint presidencies.
I appreciate what you mean, but I also think the EU does need some form of continuity and representation at that level. It can be viewed as state-like, but realistically it's no more so than the Presidency of the UN.
I know a lot of speculative stuff has been written about what "might happen" in respect of the Presidency, but I think the strongest parallel is probably the UN presidency, which is not something that would cause me great concern.
Question:
In short, I'm against any further drastic enlargement, along with further political integration. If you were me, which way would you vote?
Answer:
Ha - now there's the question. If the two points you raise here are the only real negatives in the Treaty for you, then I'd say vote Yes, on the basis of there also being rather a lot of good things in the Treaty. Lisbon isn't needed for Turkish accession, and I doubt the President of the European Council will be much more than the chairman that the treaties envisage (and whose duties they lay out in reasonable detail). I don't think another drastic enlargement is possible, let alone probable.
End of Q&A.
I digested these answers and realised that he's absolutely right. Although Lisbon does further political integration, something I amn't pushed about, it does an awful lot of good for the Union and the way the Union works. Have the EU screwed us over before? No, I don't believe they have.
Turkey is a big issue for me, but only because I've made it such. Is it likely that Turkey is going to be in the union any time soon? No, it's not and Lisbon isn't really going to do much one way or the other.
Lisbon also puts in place, for the first time, the mechanism for withdrawing from the EU, should we decide to. So, should things go in a direction we don't want it to, we can withdraw and latch back on to the UK essentially.
We should vote Yes. With the exception of my own, one principle that has been plaguing me on this, I cannot see any good reason not to vote Yes to this treaty.
But but but, if we vote Yes, we'll be seen to be giving the Government support!??!
If we vote No, we'll be seen to be giving support to shady organisations with destructive, dodgy, regressive agendas such as Libertas, COIR, Sinn Fein and the other plethora of psychopaths that have came out of the nowhere so suddenly, and well funded at that. It sickened me to see the leaders of these organisations claiming the victory on the day of the results last time round, absolutely sickened me. I'm convinced that the very same people would rather see us back farming our own land and attending ceili's than progressing as a country, economy and society.
I would rather stand by Fianna Fail and the EU than I would with Declan Ganley, Nigel Farage and the rest of the band of misfits that we'll hopefully never hear from again when this is over. I'm absolutely disgraced with FF and believe public lynchings would be appropriate, so that statement should say something.
Although I don't think that on the EU level there would be massive consequences from a No result again, I don't really want to find out now, we've nothing to gain from voting No. If the EU want to progress with political integration, they're going to do it and if we don't like what's happening, at least now we'll be able to leave legally. Besides, we'll all probably be dead before it could actually affect our lives in any drastic way as long as democracy still holds the reigns.
So, I will be voting Yes on October 2nd and I encourage any other No voters who find themselves in a similar predicament to do so also. Look at who is pushing the No vote, think why they're doing it and ask yourself do their ambitions for this country and the EU align with yours. If they do, then I feel sorry for you but if they don't, then I can only encourage you to vote Yes on this treaty. We need to put this past us and move on, if anything this whole debacle has shown us it's that political decisions at this level should not come down to the whim's and moods of people who aren't arsed to even look into the topic at hand (both sides are equally guilty of this, I will still maintain that). That video I linked is what I would deem a perfect example of someone without a clue trying to get involved in politics.
I think pride almost got the best of me after Lisbon I hence why I have maintained my position.
So thanks to Scofflaw and Prinz in particular for the information I needed to re-think my position on this and I hope it can also help others in a similar frame of mind, and I'm sure there's many of them. Have to thank Free To Prosper and Kev_PS3 also for giving me that little knock over the edge to think to myself "wtf am I doing here with this crowd of lunatics".
And sure if I'm wrong there's always Canada.
|
|
|
|
Post by Republic on Sept 23, 2009 14:33:31 GMT
That long post was not specifically aimed at you.
I made two shorter posts in response to your post, outlining how losing vetoes is not neccessarily a bad thing. Those two short posts will take you 5 mins to read!
|
|
|
|
Post by Republic on Sept 24, 2009 15:29:47 GMT
If the ECJ rulings are copper fastened we'll see exploited eastern European workers being hired by an agency in Riga to work in Ireland, but being paid Eastern European rates of pay and paying taxed to a foreign exchequer. You are either lying or misinformed about this. I will quote another forum, as it explains the situation perfectly: ''T he EU cannot issue any legislation on anything it does not have competence on, and setting minimum wages is not something the EU has the competence to do - and the EU cannot grant itself competences, it can only granted them by the member states (to the extent that this is fuzzy at all, it is clarified by Lisbon). Therefore such Irish legislation is untouchable.People think the Laval judgement involves the EU having some competence over minimum wages. It doesn't. The EU has competence to ensure that workers from other EU states are subject to the same terms and conditions as native workers. If there is a legal minimum wage or general collectively agreed wage, workers from other member states must be paid it. If there is a minimum amount of paid holidays, workers from other member states must be given them.'' The situation you are thinking of, occurred in Sweden, where there is no minimum wage at all. Therefore the ECJ could not stop companies paying Latvian workers in Sweden, Latvian wages. Because, obviously, there is no minimum in Sweden. It is pretty clear and simple. |
|
|
|
Post by Republic on Sept 24, 2009 15:39:50 GMT
As are all the other members of the Union. Sovereignty is pooled in certain areas. It is a shared sovereignty, on certain issues. So far, shared sovereignty has been nothing but good. In fact, it has been brilliant in some regards. It helped drag Ireland kicking and screaming from the 19th century to the 21st century. I don't care what the churches have to say. Their collective opinion means less than nothing to me. I am not voting for this treaty on the strength of energy or workers rights. That is acting like a spoiled child. We can not just accept the good that comes with EU membership and reject anything negative. Its about compromise and balance. You seem to think that no other country will ever have to compromise on anything. In the great scheme of things, we will benefit more often than not from EU legislation. You can't seriously be suggesting that we take the benefits of the EU, but not the negatives? Unless you have a better idea than EU membership? I'm not fond of the elites either. But they are better than FF elites anyway. This treaty really doesn't affect the average citizen of Europe that much, one way or the other. |
|
|
|
Post by Republic on Sept 24, 2009 15:41:16 GMT
The YES side might believe that yesterdays RyanAir,IDA,Intel,Church Government Blitz has tipped them into the safe zone. But they're still not knocking at doors. They're still not engaging with the average citizen. They're still trying to scare people instead of explaining the treaty. It could come back and bite them on the arse. If they went knocking on doors, they would definitely lose. Imagine a FF or FG knocking on your door these days. I think most people would do a Padraig Nally on them. |
|
lochy
Junior Member
Posts: 73
|
Post by lochy on Sept 26, 2009 20:54:14 GMT
I am still one of the dont knows. The yes side are starting to irritate me as they accuse the No side of lies(which is true) all the while peddling lies themselves. The neutrality issue...dont see it as a problem as I feel there are times when we shouldn;t be neutral, but the lisbon treaty will mean Ireland can never be neutral if a fellow EU country is attacked. We will be obliged to come to their aid. Not a problem to me as if Al Queda attack the UK again, we should do everything in our power to help, but why lie about it? Our neutrality hasn;t been an issue since masstricht anyway. This allows the European Defence Agency to make decisions by qualified majority, so war could be declared on behalf of the EU, not individual states. We could find ourselves at war, and our claim to neutrality would mean nothing.
Ireland at the heart of europe....we never have been and never will be. This treaty wont matter one iota.
The assumption that all the no voters are anti-europe. Simply not true. The treaty will mean a less democratic and less accountable europe. I would like to see us move towards a more accountable europe.
The main issue I have is that the yes side is using scare tactics without coming up with one fact. I loved the stunt that declan ganley pulled when he turned up at Fine Gaels headquarters with the treaty and a highlighter pen and asked them to highlight where it mentions jobs in the treaty. A stunt, but it highlights the fact that they do not have a grasp of the treaty.
On that point, has anyone actually tried to read the treaty. I sat down before the first vote and attepmted to go through it. It is impossible to read(bear in mind that I have a law degree from Queens). You need a full european law library to decode it.
On the whole, I think I am verging on a no, but will make my mind up in the next few days...
|
|
