television
Registered User
- Messages
- 386
And you have the gaul to question why people voted no? Please. I do not see one coherent reason there why you may have voted yes.
Lisbon defeated what happens next ?
- Thread starter nad
- Start date
And you have the gaul to question why people voted no? Please. I do not see one coherent reason there why you may have voted yes.
television
Registered User
- Messages
- 386
You forgot Jim Corr
Again, great reason for voting yes. Beats real analysis of the issues.
starlite68
Registered User
- Messages
- 330
you are dead right harchibald......our politicions and leaders are all so trustworthy and honest! walking saints..all of them.
€460m taken from the EEZ, the Irish share is 30%, so that's €322m taken by other countries. €322m * 35 = €11bn
Quote from politics.ie:
So lets see your calculations then. How have we given "massively more" than €55bn in value of fish?
The treaty isn't self amending. We would still need further referenda on constitutional changes. Where did people get this idea that the the Treaty is self amending and we'd never get another referendum? Libertas perhaps?
It's very easy to be cynical starlite68. No one said they were 'saints' but they're certainly not all crooks either as you seem to imply. And if there are problems with our political class then you need look no further than the people who elected them. We get the politicians we deserve. They are a reflection of ourselves and our own failings and faults. If you don't like them get out and vote for someone else, join a party or organise with others to form one. You might even stand for election yourself.
It is a far more sensible proposition to trust the collective judgment of the vast majority of our politicians than to fall for the paranoid ramblings of Declan Ganley.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,448
Gaul? As in Asterix? I'll tell Sarky on you.
I didn't read the document. I accepted the arguments, put forward by people whose judgement and bona fides I trust, that this was needed for the effective working of the enlarged EU.
This was reinforced by the lack of integrity (abortion, conscription etc.) in the arguments being put forward by people who I don't trust, like Sinn Fein/IRA.
A lot is made of this "did you read the document?" by the No side. The Sunday Times fairly beats Biffo up about it. Double standards here. Did anybody ask Grisly did he read the document?
Anyway this thread has taught me that reading the document in isolation would be a waste of space. One would need a week off in a Brussels library to study the whole consolidated text developped over the last 50 years.
This should never, never have been put to referendum.
So you agree then that you were completely off the mark? Ok so.
Oh, and you're forgetting completely about the CAP. We allowed other countries to take fish that we didn't have the capability to fish or protect anyway while at the same time gaining access to the CAP. You seem to think we'd have the capacity to actually earn any of this income. How much income do you think the €55bn ("a few years" of grants) has generated in Ireland? Who in their right mind thinks we got a bad deal?
You voted for them to represent you and make decisions on your part. If you don't trust them your shouldn't have voted for them
People shouldnt be hung up on the value of fish taken in the past. Its the future worth that the EU are considering. With near to shore fish stocks seriously declining in most EU countries, the Irish fisheries in the north Atlantic take on ever increasing importance as time goes by.
I am of the opinion that the fish stocks are valuable, however the potential oil/gas reserves are potentially more valuable by many multiples. For strategic purposes, the EU is going to need a secure oil supply in future years. Whether the area off Ireland is capable of meeting this need in the medium term future depends on technology, geology etc. - but as things stand, it is the only hope that the EU has of having oil once the North Sea dries up. EU is not going to give up its only hope.
I am of the opinion that the fish stocks are valuable, however the potential oil/gas reserves are potentially more valuable by many multiples. For strategic purposes, the EU is going to need a secure oil supply in future years. Whether the area off Ireland is capable of meeting this need in the medium term future depends on technology, geology etc. - but as things stand, it is the only hope that the EU has of having oil once the North Sea dries up. EU is not going to give up its only hope.
starlite68
Registered User
- Messages
- 330
obvisously the vast majority of irish people did not see fit to put their trust in the collective judgment of our wonderfull politicians! and for the record..i did not vote for this government in the last election.
Actually the Green Party published it as one of the reasons not to vote for the Treaty as well. Add that to the fact the the Taoisach didn't read it, Mary Coghlan didn't even know how many commissioners each Country had, a High Court Judge couldn't explain qualified majority voting when asked, a booklet produced by the government differed from the one produced by the referendum commission and people still think our elected representatives have any more of a clue of this treaty than the people who are posting on this thread.
And somebody spends money on infrastructure and the only benefit is the jobs created building the infrastructure? No long term benefit? The long view need only be taken with fish?
Why do we bother with infrastructure at all? Once spent the money is wasted it seems. With our vast fish based wealth we could have used helicopters to transfer our fish from port to market.
Do you know if I was a cynic I might think the Noers were trying to maximize the impact from fishing and minimize the impact of infrastructural funds.
I thought the Green Party were officially neutral on the treaty vote. Could you provide a link or more detail on what they had to say about this.
This 'the Taoiseach didn't read it' line is getting really tiresome now. Brian Cowen was Minister for Foreign Affairs during the negotiations under the Irish Presidency of the EU that finalised the deal. He was intimately involved in its drafting and he didn't have to sit down and read the treaty cover to cover to know what's in it. Clearly, the mistake he made was actually giving a frank answer to a question. Bet he wished he just lied now.
The McCreevy issue is different. As far as I'm concerned that was a really stupid statement he gave and he obviously completely misjudged the public mood on the whole debate. He certainly looked like a politician "out of touch".
Yeah well, I'm not going to defend her there. I would have expected better
My understanding is he did eventually explain it and I believe RTE's Europe editor Sean Whelan was able to explain it at that press conference. Incidentally Sean Whelan's commentary on the treaty as part of RTE's [broken link removed] is very interesting in clarifying many of the issues that came up in the campaign. Well worth taking the time to listen to for those still interested in the contents of the treaty.
What was that about? What were the differences?
The Green party were neutral but they listed reasons to vote for and against the treaty. The self ammending aspect was one of the reasons against.
http://www.greenparty.ie/en/content/download/15600/197045/file/EU_Reform_Treaty_LR_noreg.pdf
I probably phrased the booklet thing wrong. The referendum commission had to come out after saying it would have no other part to play in the referendum debate to make statements on certain items after people questioned what they said compared to what the Government were saying. To be fair they backed up the government but it just added to the general confusion.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,448
What about the lost city of Atlantis? That could become strategically very important when it is found. Another reason why the EU desperately needs to hold on to Ireland.
television
Registered User
- Messages
- 386
Gaul? As in Asterix? I'll tell Sarky on you.
I didn't read the document. I accepted the arguments, put forward by people whose judgement and bona fides I trust, that this was needed for the effective working of the enlarged EU.
This was reinforced by the lack of integrity (abortion, conscription etc.) in the arguments being put forward by people who I don't trust, like Sinn Fein/IRA.
A lot is made of this "did you read the document?" by the No side. The Sunday Times fairly beats Biffo up about it. Double standards here. Did anybody ask Grisly did he read the document?
Anyway this thread has taught me that reading the document in isolation would be a waste of space. One would need a week off in a Brussels library to study the whole consolidated text developped over the last 50 years.
This should never, never have been put to referendum.
Gaul was a pun in relation to the European angle.
You are the one that is constantly questioning what exactly in the text that people who have voted no objected to. Its a little ironic I think.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,448
Surprisingly good document by the Green Party and if we really had a choice I would probably vote No (some of your points TV, like public service privitisation, do seem valid).
But my main argument has been that we had no real choice. We have isolated ourselves and made some very strange new friends. We will eventually have to say Yes and dare the Irish government ever try to exercise its veto all alone!! The No camp's gloomy analysis is going to be self fulfilling.
Ok, TV, your Gaul pun was a bit too clever for me, thought it was another spello.