# The Lisbon vote



## sansolde

Just wondering what the feelings are about the Lisbon treaty.  Most of the articles I read in the papers seem to be pretty biased, and i dont think they reflect a true picture of how the irish feel about it.


----------



## GeneralZod

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

It seems like an uninspiring collection of sensible enough tweaks to the existing treaties and institutions of the EU. It remains to be seen how much practical difference any of them will make. Each country will carry on acting like they've always done. i.e. self interestedly.


----------



## shesells

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

I'm generally pro-Europe but feel totally uninspired to vote at all on this referendum. I imagine I'd vote yes if I do vote but why do we need to vote on what are generally administrative changes in the EU?

Will see how I feel closer to the actualy referendum, they haven't even announced a date yet!


----------



## rmelly

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

no - the experiment has gone too far and needs to be reigned in - stick to the economic union.


----------



## bond-007

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

An unelected president of Europe? No thanks!


----------



## Jack The Lad

*Re: Lisbon? No.*

To me it's like trying to build an overelaborate skyscraper on a crumbling foundation, designed and overseen by a committee of lunatics. 

The EEC was formed to do two things. Keep Germany, France and England from each other's throats, and to ensure a guaranteed supply of food from farm to table. Now it's a bloated bureaucratic mess... 

A big NO from me anyway.

Can't wait to get at that ballot-paper!


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

I look at the motley collection of wacko’s, from the socialist workers party to the extremist wings of Sinn Fein, who oppose the treaty and I find that I must vote for it.


----------



## bond-007

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

That's what FF depend on.


----------



## Jack The Lad

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Purple said:


> I look at the motley collection of wacko’s, from the socialist workers party to the extremist wings of Sinn Fein, who oppose the treaty and I find that I must vote for it.


 
I can see where you're comming from, but (cliché comming up here; apologies in advance)...

...two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



bond-007 said:


> That's what FF depend on.



FG and Labour are also supporting Lisbon. My point is that all of the middle ground (middle 90%) are supporting it. The 5% at either extreme are opposing it. That's a good enough reason for me. 
The fact that I don't like nationalism and have no problem with the idea of a federal Europe may also factor there somewhere


----------



## GeneralZod

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



bond-007 said:


> An unelected president of Europe? No thanks!



No need to worry then. 

The job is actually President of the European Council (of heads of government) and is largely an administrative role with the odd opportunity to act as a figurehead when representing the council.


----------



## ninsaga

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Purple said:


> FGMy point is that all of the middle ground (middle 90%) are supporting it. The 5% at either extreme are opposing it. That's a good enough reason for me.



....but what are they supporting exactly? Are the contents of the treaty explicitly called out in layman's terms. I have yet to see what the pro's/con's are with it.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



ninsaga said:


> ....but what are they supporting exactly? Are the contents of the treaty explicitly called out in layman's terms. I have yet to see what the pro's/con's are with it.


 No treaty is ever written in layman's terms; it's a legal document.


----------



## ninsaga

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

....exactly & as a result there are very few who understand its contents & its implications. Are we to believe that each of the political representatives who are endorsing it also fully understand it. 
This being the case then the major parties are expecting herd mentality to get this passed. 
As a result of this I am interested in hearing what those who are against it have to say.
Has there already been a level of political debate on this ... on Primetime or whatever?


----------



## GeneralZod

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Prime Time has given it some coverage.

Here's what the Irish MEPs have to say on it. Force yourself to read down through them, very boring, but it should be informative on what the arguments are. All of the MEPs except the SF one are pro but often they attempt to rebut the arguments of the anti camp.


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



rmelly said:


> no - the experiment has gone too far and needs to be reigned in - stick to the economic union.


Fully agree with the above. I'll be voting NO.  There's nothing in this treaty for Ireland just giving the EU more power over us, that's why the YES camp won't argue on it's merits.  The governments are shameless and brazen to repackage this constitution which has already been rejected by the French and Dutch people.  The Irish people have an opportunity to speak for the peoples of Europe, whom have been denied a voice.  The politicians serve us, not the other way around as they seem to think.  A NO would be good for democracy and for Europe.


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Purple said:


> No treaty is ever written in layman's terms; it's a legal document.


The Irish Constitution is easy to read and understand.  The latest EU treaty is unreadable by design.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



michaelm said:


> The Irish Constitution is easy to read and understand.  The latest EU treaty is unreadable by design.



 The constitution is not the same; it is a framework within which our laws sit. Legislation is required to turn its aspirations into actions.


----------



## room305

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Although it disturbs me greatly to find myself on the same side as lunatics like Sinn Fein and the Socialist Worker's Party, when I cannot find a convincing reason to vote "yes" for something, I vote "no".


----------



## Protocol

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

I will be voting YES.

Practically every aspect of our ionvolvement with the EU over the years has been positive:

1. Huge income gains to farmers via the CAP

2. Boost to our human capital via the ESF.

3. Huge improvements to our infrastructure from the ERDF.

4. Huge gains to trade, from the single market.

5. Single currency is a success.

6. Environmental improvements encouraged or forced by the EU.


And many, many more.


----------



## shanegl

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Protocol said:


> I will be voting YES.
> 
> Practically every aspect of our ionvolvement with the EU over the years has been positive:
> 
> 1. Huge income gains to farmers via the CAP
> 
> 2. Boost to our human capital via the ESF.
> 
> 3. Huge improvements to our infrastructure from the ERDF.
> 
> 4. Huge gains to trade, from the single market.
> 
> 5. Single currency is a success.
> 
> 6. Environmental improvements encouraged or forced by the EU.
> 
> 
> And many, many more.


 
The above is the problem with the Yes campaign. Instead of arguing the benefits of the Lisbon Treaty, they instead argue the past and future benefits of EU membership. Voting No to the Treaty won't remove these benefits at all, we'll still be a member of a single market and single currency. This isn't a vote on EU membership.

I need to sit down and actually find out what this Treaty is all about before I vote. I suspect there will be a solid No vote though.


----------



## shnaek

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

I agree that the EU has been very positive for Ireland, and I would trust it in many cases more than I would trust our own elected officials and civil servants. 

However, we do need to ask exactly what Europe we want to live in. Do we want a federation of states? Do we want economic union? Do we want seperation of taxes? Do we want European Law to overrule our constitution? Do we want a Europe which expands further eastwards? Do we want a military union? Do we want accountability?

These are the questions people need to be asking. I am pro Europe. I have lived and worked in other EU countries in the past. But as for trusting a document which purports to interpret the treaty - that is quite a serious matter when we are signing a legally binding document. 

The argument on the YES side - "trust us".

And if it turns out that the interpretation of the treaty was incorrect - who is to blame? 

I haven't decided how I am going to vote. In the past I voted YES. This time I am not sure.


----------



## Madangan

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



room305 said:


> Although it disturbs me greatly to find myself on the same side as lunatics like Sinn Fein and the Socialist Worker's Party, when I cannot find a convincing reason to vote "yes" for something, I vote "no".


 
 Me too! Also Ulick McEvaddy  a very successful businessman and certainly no Lunatic or Shinner.


----------



## GeneralZod

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

The Lisbon Treaty

* Defines the limits of EU responsibilities

* Reforms EU institutions into more effective decision makers for 27+ members

* Strengthens EUs ability to act together as a common bloc in areas of mutual interest for greater effect:
	Further economic development
	Environmental protection & global warming mitigation
        Sustainable energy policy
        Combatting illegal immigration

* Increases the role of elected MEPs in EU decision making where they'll get co-decision powers in 95% of the areas within the EU remit.

* Gives Ireland greater say in Regional Policy (Cohesion & Structural funds) and tourism

* Provisions promoting: Full employment, greater social inclusion & children's rights

* EU Charter of fundamental rights which can be invoked through Irish and EU courts

* Nothing in the Treaty allowing the EU to:
	Set our tax rates 
	Change our stance on neutrality (triple lock remains). Any change requires another referendum
        Decide our citizenship laws
        Make foreign policy decisions without unanimity
        Change our abortion laws

* All states have equal right of representation on EU commission irrespective of their size. (10 out of every 15 years)


----------



## bond-007

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



GeneralZod said:


> * All states have equal right of representation on EU commission irrespective of their size. (10 out of every 15 years)



Explain the 10 out of every 15 years please? Will there now be 27 commissioners, i.e. 1 from each member state?


----------



## ninsaga

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



GeneralZod said:


> The Lisbon Treaty
> 
> * Nothing in the Treaty allowing the EU to:
> Set our tax rates
> Change our stance on neutrality (triple lock remains). Any change requires another referendum
> Decide our citizenship laws
> Make foreign policy decisions without unanimity
> Change our abortion laws



 This being the case then there is no concern - my understanding though (albeit very little on the treaty) is that the treaty does allow for provisions to be made in the future on any of these aspects which may be 'enforceable' in Ireland. 

Right now France is making undertomnes on tax harmonisation that could change our corporation tax rates & thus when pushed upwards will make Ireland lass favourable for foreign investment.


----------



## GeneralZod

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



bond-007 said:


> Explain the 10 out of every 15 years please? Will there now be 27 commissioners, i.e. 1 from each member state?



After 2014 it reduces the number of commissioners from 27 to 18 as there isn't enough real work for 27 of them to do. So at any one time 1/3 of the EU countries will not have a commissioner. It should be noted here that commissioners are expected to act in the EU's as a whole interest. 10 out of 15 years is to ensure that no country goes without a commissioner for too long.



ninsaga said:


> Right now France is making undertomnes on tax harmonisation that could change our corporation tax rates & thus when pushed upwards will make Ireland lass favourable for foreign investment.



This is also a concern to me but my understanding is that there's nothing in the Lisbon treaty making it any more likely the French will get their way. If the treaty is voted down they'll still pursue it. Within a common framework we're more likely to be able to block the French than under the more bilateral situation without it.


----------



## shnaek

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



GeneralZod said:


> * Nothing in the Treaty allowing the EU to:
> Set our tax rates
> Change our stance on neutrality (triple lock remains). Any change requires another referendum
> Decide our citizenship laws
> Make foreign policy decisions without unanimity
> Change our abortion laws



And if this turns out not to be the case, what happens then? Will it be like the time they abolished Duty Free, with a promise to Ireland that we would be exempt. We weren't. Nothing happened.


----------



## bond-007

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



shnaek said:


> And if this turns out not to be the case, what happens then? Will it be like the time they abolished Duty Free, with a promise to Ireland that we would be exempt. We weren't. Nothing happened.


Reason enough to vote no.


----------



## cjh

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Am I correct in thinking that the document we're being given to read is an 'interpretation' of the Treaty and not the actual Treaty itself?
In which case it's open to legal challenge?
And we don't _really_ know what we're being asked to vote on?


----------



## bond-007

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



cjh said:


> Am I correct in thinking that the document we're being given to read is an 'interpretation' of the Treaty and not the actual Treaty itself?
> In which case it's open to legal challenge?
> And we don't _really_ know what we're being asked to vote on?


It's Nice all over again. If they get a no vote they will keep rerunning it under they get a yes.


----------



## shnaek

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



cjh said:


> Am I correct in thinking that the document we're being given to read is an 'interpretation' of the Treaty and not the actual Treaty itself?
> In which case it's open to legal challenge?
> And we don't _really_ know what we're being asked to vote on?



That is exactly the point. The real treaty is apparently unreadable. I haven't yet heard of anyone who has been able to read it. It refers to paragraphs in lots of other treaties, some of which couldn't be obtained by Vincent Browne when he went looking for them. 
So we are being asked to vote on an interpretation, with no one responsible if that interpretation turns out to be wrong. 

Perhaps more credibility would be gained if the political parties on the YES side said they would resign en-masse if it turns out that their interpretation is wrong. Now that would be a sign of confidence. 

But without anyone taking responsibility for this interpretation we could end up with a health service style - 'Yeah, we made a mess of it but nobody is responsible' scenario - in the event of the interpretation turning out to be wrong.


----------



## cjh

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

So our (Irish) 'interpretation' could be different from the French/Italian etc 'interpretation'.....so we don't really have a treaty at all?
How reasonable/democratic is it to ask people to vote on something that has been acknowledged by both sides to be unintelligible?

Could this be deliberate?


----------



## ubiquitous

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

ALL laws and treaties are written in technical, complicated language. Try reading the Taxes Acts


----------



## bond-007

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Who produced this interpretation? The Irish Government or the EU commission?


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



cjh said:


> So our (Irish) 'interpretation' could be different from the French/Italian etc 'interpretation'.....so we don't really have a treaty at all?
> How reasonable/democratic is it to ask people to vote on something that has been acknowledged by both sides to be unintelligible?


Good point. That’s why we elect representatives to look at these sorts of things for us. 
It’s also why referendums on these sort of issues are a bad idea.


----------



## ninsaga

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



shnaek said:


> That is exactly the point. The real treaty is apparently unreadable. I haven't yet heard of anyone who has been able to read it. It refers to paragraphs in lots of other treaties, some of which couldn't be obtained by Vincent Browne when he went looking for them.
> So we are being asked to vote on an interpretation, with no one responsible if that interpretation turns out to be wrong.



Well thats it exactly.... I took a look at it & it is difficult to follow as it does cross reference other documents stating the likes of one paragraph replacing another or phrases to be inserted/amending other documents.


----------



## bond-007

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Purple said:


> It’s also why referendums on these sort of issues are a bad idea.


Explain?


----------



## cjh

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



ubiquitous said:


> ALL laws and treaties are written in technical, complicated language. Try reading the Taxes Acts




I can understand this....


Article 1 
The Irish nation hereby affirms its inalienable, 
indefeasible, and sovereign right to choose its own form 
of Government, to determine its relations with other 
nations, and to develop its life, political, economic and 
cultural, in accordance with its own genius and 
traditions.

http://tinyurl.com/39u8v9


----------



## csirl

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Even though I am a fan of the aims of the EU, I will be voting NO on this treaty. My reasons include the following:

1. There is a huge democratic deficit in the EU. This treaty does not address this and in fact solidifies some undemocratic principals. I know the current EU has a democratic deficit, but this should be solved before we move the EU project forward. This does not seem to be a big deal in many EU countries, mainly because many are not that long out of dictatorship and some even have unelected heads of state.

2. It is pushing ahead with new stuff when many of the existing EU countries (and those beyond) are not up to speed with the current stuff. All countries should have the EU currency. All should have free movement. All should be in Shengen. Those countries such as Norway & Switzerland who have benefits of freedom of movement & trade, yet none of the responsibilities and liabilities of EU membership should be told to either join the club or be on the outside - not a halfway house. We cannot have a pick and chose the bits you like type of EU membership. Everyone should accept the good and the bad on the basis that the overall package is good.

3. Interpretation points made on this forum are good. I've read the treaty and the english used is very bad and easily misinterpreted. 

4. Language. Following on from 3. above. The EU needs to accept that it should only operate in 1 language - English. Otherwise we have the babels tower of misinterpretation etc. The big barrier to this is France. They must accept that the world does not revolve around them and nobody is interested in speaking French in the EU. The rest of the EU needs to tell them where to go with regard to bilingualism.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



bond-007 said:


> Explain?



We have a representative democracy for a reason. I don’t have the time, inclination or skills to make myself aware of legislation going through the Dail so I pay politicians to represent me in the chamber and vote on my behalf. If I don’t think they are voting in a way that is in line with my views I vote for someone else in the next election. There is no way that 95% of the people who vote on the Lisbon treaty will have a comprehensive grasp of the issues involved. Therefore they will vote from a position of ignorance. I think that this is not a good thing.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



csirl said:


> Even though I am a fan of the aims of the EU, I will be voting NO on this treaty. My reasons include the following:
> 
> 1. There is a huge democratic deficit in the EU. This treaty does not address this and in fact solidifies some undemocratic principals. I know the current EU has a democratic deficit, but this should be solved before we move the EU project forward. This does not seem to be a big deal in many EU countries, mainly because many are not that long out of dictatorship and some even have unelected heads of state.
> 
> 2. It is pushing ahead with new stuff when many of the existing EU countries (and those beyond) are not up to speed with the current stuff. All countries should have the EU currency. All should have free movement. All should be in Shengen. Those countries such as Norway & Switzerland who have benefits of freedom of movement & trade, yet none of the responsibilities and liabilities of EU membership should be told to either join the club or be on the outside - not a halfway house. We cannot have a pick and chose the bits you like type of EU membership. Everyone should accept the good and the bad on the basis that the overall package is good.
> 
> 3. Interpretation points made on this forum are good. I've read the treaty and the english used is very bad and easily misinterpreted.
> 
> 4. Language. Following on from 3. above. The EU needs to accept that it should only operate in 1 language - English. Otherwise we have the babels tower of misinterpretation etc. The big barrier to this is France. They must accept that the world does not revolve around them and nobody is interested in speaking French in the EU. The rest of the EU needs to tell them where to go with regard to bilingualism.


All very good points, but then again I can't stand Switzerland (as a political entity)so you're pushing an open door with me on that one


----------



## cjh

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



csirl said:


> Even though I am a fan of the aims of the EU, I will be voting NO on this treaty. My reasons include the following:
> 
> 1. There is a huge democratic deficit in the EU. This treaty does not address this and in fact solidifies some undemocratic principals. I know the current EU has a democratic deficit, but this should be solved before we move the EU project forward. This does not seem to be a big deal in many EU countries, mainly because many are not that long out of dictatorship and some even have unelected heads of state.
> 
> .




That's my main reason for voting NO too.


P.S. I agree we should be in Shengen - but it was our own government who decided to keep us out.


----------



## shnaek

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Purple said:


> We have a representative democracy for a reason. I don’t have the time, inclination or skills to make myself aware of legislation going through the Dail so I pay politicians to represent me in the chamber and vote on my behalf. If I don’t think they are voting in a way that is in line with my views I vote for someone else in the next election. There is no way that 95% of the people who vote on the Lisbon treaty will have a comprehensive grasp of the issues involved. Therefore they will vote from a position of ignorance. I think that this is not a good thing.



I agree in principle with the points you are making, however I do not trust our government to interpret for me a voluminous treaty such as this one. I would be more inclined to trust them if they promised to resign from politics if they are proven in the future to have gotten the interpretation wrong. That would lend credibility to their argument.

If they are putting nothing on the line as per usual, then how can we vote yes because they say 'Trust Us'? They say 'trust us' to run the health system too.


----------



## Superman

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



cjh said:


> P.S. I agree we should be in Shengen - but it was our own government who decided to keep us out.


I believe it was the British government who decided to keep us out - Ireland merely wished to keep the existing arrangements with Britain and Northern Ireland where no passports were required and that was believed to be  more important  joining Shengen.


----------



## bond-007

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



> Ireland merely wished to keep the existing arrangements with Britain and Northern Ireland where no passports were required and that was believed to be more important joining Shengen.


And that's where we fail. Following the UK for the sake of not upsetting the northerners.


----------



## GeneralZod

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



csirl said:


> Even though I am a fan of the aims of the EU, I will be voting NO on this treaty. My reasons include the following:
> 
> 1. There is a huge democratic deficit in the EU. This treaty does not address this and in fact solidifies some undemocratic principals. I know the current EU has a democratic deficit, but this should be solved before we move the EU project forward.



Can you justify this point more?


----------



## csirl

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Where do you start? The EU Commission is not elected, yet it makes decisions that should have democratic accountability. The seats in the EU Parliament are not allocated evenly - some countries have more seats per population that others (I know Ireland is one of these, but that doesnt make it right). Also some countries with similar populations e.g. France & Poland, do not have a similar number of seats. There is also an attitude that if something wont fly with the Parliament, which has some democratic accountability, then just use the Commission to get it done. I know some people will argue that the Commission is appointed by various Governments etc. etc. and therefore is democratic because the Governments were elected. But I think that this argument is weak as the Commission is too many degrees of separation away from any sort of democratic accountability to make it democratic. 

If I were reforming the EU and making it more democratically accountable, I think that I'd totally abolish the Commission and put in place a 2 chamber parliament. The lower chamber would be directly elected by proportional representation with each EU citizens vote carrying equal weight. I would have no more than a 2 or 3 hundred MEP rather than the cumbersome number we have now. The upper house, would help protect the individual identities of the member states, could be like the US Senate - have 2 Senators per EU country. You'd have a proper double lock system whereby for a law to pass you'd need a majority of the MEPs and a majority of the Senators.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



csirl said:


> If I were reforming the EU and making it more democratically accountable, I think that I'd totally abolish the Commission and put in place a 2 chamber parliament. The lower chamber would be directly elected by proportional representation with each EU citizens vote carrying equal weight. I would have no more than a 2 or 3 hundred MEP rather than the cumbersome number we have now. The upper house, would help protect the individual identities of the member states, could be like the US Senate - have 2 Senators per EU country. You'd have a proper double lock system whereby for a law to pass you'd need a majority of the MEPs and a majority of the Senators.


If we had that we’d have a de-facto federal EU. Broadly speaking I’m in favour of this but I strongly suspect that I am in the minority on this.


----------



## bond-007

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

+1

I am in favour of a federal system. Makes more sense tbh.


----------



## shnaek

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

What would be the benefits of a federal system? What powers would it have that it doesn't have now?


----------



## csirl

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Its not so much as what powers would it have, its more to do with who is making the decisions and the fairness of those decisions.


----------



## efm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Without wanting to take the discussion off course I think that the "EU" are certainly doing themselves no favours by voting not to allow disclosure of the report into expenses mis-use by MEP's.


----------



## jhegarty

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



bond-007 said:


> Who produced this interpretation? The Irish Government or the EU commission?





This my main issue , it was written by the Irish goverment and no provision was made for an alternative view in the document the taxes payers are paying for...


----------



## room305

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Purple said:


> If we had that we’d have a de-facto federal EU. Broadly speaking I’m in favour of this but I strongly suspect that I am in the minority on this.


 
You can add me to that small band.


----------



## BillK

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

At least you are getting to vote in a referendum; the UK government refuses to allow a referendum in UK even though such referendum was promised in the Labour party's  manifesto.


----------



## Protocol

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

CSIRL,

the European Commission do not make decisions.

It is a powerful institution at the heart of the EU, but it does not have the final say on decision-making.

It proposes new policies, implements policies, and supervises spending.

But the key decision-making body is the Council of Ministers.


----------



## ajapale

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Now this is my kind of Europe!

The capital of the Atlantic Zone would be Lisbon.


----------



## GeneralZod

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Last time I checked Norway wasn't in the EU.


----------



## ajapale

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Its from The Sun 23 Apr 2008. and purports to show what those EUrocrats have in store for us all Including Norway, England etc.


----------



## bond-007

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Utter madness from the EU.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Purple said:


> We have a representative democracy for a reason. I don’t have the time, inclination or skills to make myself aware of legislation going through the Dail so I pay politicians to represent me in the chamber and vote on my behalf. If I don’t think they are voting in a way that is in line with my views I vote for someone else in the next election. There is no way that 95% of the people who vote on the Lisbon treaty will have a comprehensive grasp of the issues involved. Therefore they will vote from a position of ignorance. I think that this is not a good thing.


Spot on, _Purple_. And we are kidding ourselves of thinking that we have the luxury of voting "No". 

To paraphrase Lady Bracknell, "No" to Nice was careless, "No" to Lisbon would be irresponsible. The rest of the EU will eventually lose patience with this backwater which has sponged so much from this project. 

Time to seriously rewrite De Valera's constititution. Life is more complex now, we can't afford the luxury of referenda on complex issues like how the EU is administered.


----------



## S.L.F

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

I have heard a lot about what we got from the EU.
My understanding was that we gave up our our fishing grounds to join the EEC back in the 70's.
I'm not too sure how many trillion that rakes in every year but I'm sure it makes up for any money we got for our farmers.
I'll be voting a BIG NO!


----------



## GeneralZod

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



S.L.F said:


> My understanding was that we gave up our our fishing grounds to join the EEC back in the 70's.



[broken link removed]



> Ireland declared an Exclusive Economic Zone in Part 3 of the Sea Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006, which was enacted on 4 April 2006.





> The exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is the zone immediately adjacent and beyond the territorial seas extending to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines. In the EEZ the coastal state enjoys sovereign rights over the exploitation, conservation and management of living and non-living natural resources and exercises jurisdiction over marine scientific research and for the protection of the marine environment.


----------



## S.L.F

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

The point I was making was that we paid a huge price to join the EEC.

There was a time once when only Irish boats could legally fish in Irish waters.

I just object to people saying we have sponged from the EU.

It is quite the reverse they have done well out of us.

Now due to over fishing by various fishing fleets Irish fleets have to cut their quotas and thus this will cost more Irish jobs.


----------



## GeneralZod

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

You're turning reality on it's head there.


----------



## S.L.F

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

We must call things as we see them.

I just don't see any benefit from this new treaty.

Nobody I know can read such stuff, we are expected to trust our politicians to know what its all about, and they can't read it either.

Now we can go backwards and forwards on this all night. The reality is that our govt will keep pushing us to vote for this until they get the right result and thus I will vote against it because I just don't trust any govt lead by FF.

Now I have to go to bed or my good lady wife will invoke treaty clause 25464738d sub paragraph 7 which basically means I will sleep on the couch if I don't come to bed now.

Good night Generalzod, we will talk again.


----------



## bond-007

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



> The reality is that our govt will keep pushing us to vote for this until they get the right result and thus I will vote against it because I just don't trust any govt lead by FF.


Ain't that the truth. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them.


----------



## shnaek

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Harchibald said:


> Spot on, _Purple_. And we are kidding ourselves of thinking that we have the luxury of voting "No".
> 
> To paraphrase Lady Bracknell, "No" to Nice was careless, "No" to Lisbon would be irresponsible. The rest of the EU will eventually lose patience with this backwater which has sponged so much from this project.


If you truely believe this, then are you saying that the referendum is a sham?



Harchibald said:


> Time to seriously rewrite De Valera's constititution. Life is more complex now, we can't afford the luxury of referenda on complex issues like how the EU is administered.



If EU administration is so complex that the ordinary voter can not understand it then we need to simplify it, and we need a chain of responsibility so decisions can be traced to people and offices responsible. 

We in Ireland have vast experience of cock-ups in government departments where no one is held responsible. How bad could this be in a population block 100 times our size?

We cannot go back to the days of absolute unaccountability. I am all for Europe - but not a Europe that works like the beaurocracy in the movie 'Brazil', and certainly not a Europe that presumes to tell voters that they are morons if they use their democratic rights to vote against a position if they believe that that position is the wrong one.


----------



## ninsaga

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



S.L.F said:


> The reality is that our govt will keep pushing us to vote for this until they get the right result and thus I will vote against it because I just don't trust any govt lead by FF.



So does this mean that if FG were in government (or any other party for that matter) that you would vote Yes? Given the fact that all major parties (FG, Labour, PD's) are in favour of Lisbon.

ninsaga


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

SLF, the Irish fishing industry is worth less than one billion Euro. At the time we joined the EU it was small and used very old boats. To suggest that the loss of potential development in this sector outweighs the tens of billions of Euro we have received in CAP payments alone, not to mention the billions in structural funds, over the years is ludicrous.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Purple said:


> not to mention the billions in structural funds, over the years is ludicrous.


Not to mention a fall in interest rates to a quarter of what they were before we joined, ditto a quartering of unemployment, ditto a quartering of inflation. Not to mention Ireland being allowed to establish itself as America's quasi tax haven in the EU. 

If like all the other 26 countries we had no referendum, would there be a clamour against this Treaty? Not at all, business as usual so far as everyone is concerned. It just happens by a naive quirk of the Bunreacht that the people must be asked. 

To be honest the referendum ballot paper should read:

"Vote YES to endorse the Lisbon Treaty and proceed with the EU project"

"Vote NO to reject the LT and commence negotiations for our withdrawal from the EU".

Instead we have the self-indulgent, and maybe self deluding, simple Yes or No to the LT which allows the contrarians a field day.


----------



## bond-007

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



> "Vote NO to reject the LT and commence negotiations for our withdrawal from the EU".


That is scaremongering.


----------



## shnaek

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

There are some interesting questions posed here by Tom McGurk, that would be worth considering by those in the YES camp:

[broken link removed]

Personally, I have always voted YES for Europe. I am currently reading as much as I can so I can be convinced to vote YES this time - but so far all I read from the YES side are threats and  pleads to 'trust us'. 

Those arguements are hardly convincing.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



shnaek said:


> If you truely believe this, then are you saying that the referendum is a sham?


 I believe that referenda are a bad idea. They are the last vestage of mob rule.


----------



## bond-007

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

I agree with Tom McGurk. The government does need to answer those questions. 
Incidentally I received a piece of government propaganda today about the LT, I assume that this is their interpretation of the treaty. 

Where are the arguments for and against the LT that must be produced to the voters?


----------



## ninsaga

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Harchibald said:


> "Vote NO to reject the LT and commence negotiations for our withdrawal from the EU".



This is not the way to get a yes vote by any manner or means.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



bond-007 said:


> I agree with Tom McGurk. The government does need to answer those questions.
> Incidentally I received a piece of government propaganda today about the LT, I assume that this is their interpretation of the treaty.
> 
> Where are the arguments for and against the LT that must be produced to the voters?



The Referendum Commission (which is a non-party body) will be sending out info to every home in Ireland. If this is what you received then your assertion that it was “government propaganda” is not correct.


----------



## shnaek

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Purple said:


> I believe that referenda are a bad idea. They are the last vestage of mob rule.



But isn't that what democracy is?


----------



## bond-007

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Purple said:


> The Referendum Commission (which is a non-party body) will be sending out info to every home in Ireland. If this is what you received then your assertion that it was “government propaganda” is not correct.


I received a booklet from the Department of Foreign Affairs. It was 100% pro treaty.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



shnaek said:


> But isn't that what democracy is?



We have a system of representative democracy where the supreme court is the guardian of the constitution. This enables them to ensure that parliament does not impose laws that are populist but infringe on the rights of minority groups. Referenda do not have a mechanism to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority.


----------



## shnaek

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Purple said:


> Referenda do not have a mechanism to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority.


Good point.

As for the supreme court being guardian of our constitution, is it not the case that our constitution will be inferior to EU law if this treaty is passed - and thus we will no longer be guaranteed this protection from the tyranny of the majority?


----------



## S.L.F

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



ninsaga said:


> So does this mean that if FG were in government (or any other party for that matter) that you would vote Yes? Given the fact that all major parties (FG, Labour, PD's) are in favour of Lisbon.
> 
> ninsaga



My old driving instructor Joe Lawlor once told me he always votes for the little guys because they don't gain in any way from a *No *result, they do what they do because they care, but FF, PD, FG, all gain from a Yes vote because they are all business related parties.
They are in the business of looking after themselves, their friends and nobody else.
Perhaps if the treaty was possible to read it might change my mind but apparently its totally unreadable.
I understand we, a small nation, have a chance to speak for many people who have no voice on this treaty.
Well how can we make an informed choice if we don't even know what its about.
I said in an earlier thread that I recently saw the complete series of "Yes Minister", this program is a real eye opener and just reaffirms for me that I should be voting a big *NO*


----------



## ninsaga

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Jeez SLF - great advice there - from your driving instructor & a sit-com!


----------



## bond-007

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

A no vote will mean  reruns until it is a yes vote.


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

I've been looking at [broken link removed] and I find the 'WHAT THEY SAID' quotes quite interesting.  I suspect some of the quotes would make those most enthusiastic about Lisbon blush.


----------



## ubiquitous

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



S.L.F said:


> My old driving instructor Joe Lawlor once told me he always votes for the little guys because they don't gain in any way from a *No *result, they do what they do because they care,



The bould Joe must never have heard of the term "niche marketing". Forgive me for being cynical, but I don't believe that Michael Lowry, Jackie Healy Rae or Caoimhghin O'Caolain are necessarily any better than anybody else simply because they're not members of the major parties.


----------



## AlastairSC

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

I say vote NO.  We're much better off when when our own policitians are in charge and we do things independently - just look at our transport system and health system!  Who needs outside advice or law? What have the Romans (oops, I mean the Europeans) ever done for us?


----------



## bond-007

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



> Lisbon retains 96% of the EU Constitution, and makes it very clear that EU law will be superior to the Irish Constitution. This means your constitutional rights can be overruled.


 You must be joking if they think that they can railroad this thru.


----------



## Caveat

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



bond-007 said:


> A no vote will mean reruns until it is a yes vote.


 
I reckon you're right


----------



## noname

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



bond-007 said:


> A no vote will mean reruns until it is a yes vote.


 
True, but it might be reran with a better explanation of what we are actually voting on, 

I will be voting no untill I understand what Lisbon is about.


----------



## S.L.F

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



ubiquitous said:


> Forgive me for being cynical, but I don't believe that Michael Lowry, Jackie Healy Rae or Caoimhghin O'Caolain are necessarily any better than anybody else simply because they're not members of the major parties.



This is why we have a so called democracy, anybody can vote.

The problem is that our Govt does not give both sides to the argument.



noname said:


> True, but it might be reran with a better explanation of what we are actually voting on,
> 
> I will be voting no untill I understand what Lisbon is about.



It will never be explained in simple English, if it was anybody could read it.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



noname said:


> I will be voting no untill I understand what Lisbon is about.


That's boll*x. If you don't understand it don't vote. Alternatively trust your democracy whose main parties all urge you to vote Yes. I haven't a baldy clue what Lisbon is about but if Bertie, Brian, Enda, Eamon etc. say it is a disaster to vote No that's good enuff for me. And if Grisly Adams is asking me to vote No then I don't care what it is, I'm voting Yes.


----------



## S.L.F

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Harchibald said:


> That's boll*x. If you don't understand it don't vote.



Bertie, Brian, Enda, Eamon even Grisly Adams all say we should go out and vote, so who the hell are you to tell someone not to vote because they don't understand something.
Last time I checked we are supposed to live in a democracy that means we all get a vote whether this govt explains it or not.
If the yes bunch wanted us all to vote yes they should explain it to us not ram it down our throats like Nice.


----------



## bond-007

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Also by abstaining you are indirectly voting yes.


----------



## franmac

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*




Harchibald said:


> That's boll*x. If you don't understand it don't vote. Alternatively trust your democracy whose main parties all urge you to vote Yes. I haven't a baldy clue what Lisbon is about but if Bertie, Brian, Enda, Eamon etc. say it is a disaster to vote No that's good enuff for me. And if Grisly Adams is asking me to vote No then I don't care what it is, I'm voting Yes.


 
I totally disagree with your opinion that "if you don't understand it don't vote". I am entitled to vote YES or NO to any referendom or in the case of local or general election to make my decision on who or what I vote for. 

As for all our Bertie, Brian, Enda, Eamon, etc telling us how to vote where is the democracy gone. 

I for sure will be voting NO because I do not trust our government and our Irish culture is gradually been overshadowed by European entities.


----------



## shnaek

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Harchibald said:


> I haven't a baldy clue what Lisbon is about but if Bertie, Brian, Enda, Eamon etc. say it is a disaster to vote No that's good enuff for me.



That is the problem though  - why are they telling us it's a disaster if we vote no? What's the disaster? Is it what happened to France and Holland when they voted NO to the constitution?

Any why not tell us the positive reasons to vote YES?


----------



## rmelly

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Exactly - I haven't heard a single good reason.

I've heard numerous negatives, e.g. do you want to be on the same side as SF, loonies etc, bad for Ireland if we vote against, if we vote against we will be isolated, we would be ungrateful because of all funds previously received, if we vote against  the measures would be adopted by others anyway so we'd lose out, nothing actually changing anyway, just a bit of cleanup etc etc etc...

What are the positives?


----------



## Teabag

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

I think there will be a big NO vote partly due to the fact that us Irish are rebellious in nature and independent in mind and like to be seen to stand up to the big bullies and just like to be seen/heard full stop.

But I would go along with previous poster Harchibald, if the main parties think voting No would be a bad thing, then I would be inclined to trust them and vote Yes. Afterall, its not often they agree on something so it must be beneficial.


----------



## noname

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Harchibald said:


> That's boll*x. If you don't understand it don't vote. Alternatively trust your democracy whose main parties all urge you to vote Yes. I haven't a baldy clue what Lisbon is about but if Bertie, Brian, Enda, Eamon etc. say it is a disaster to vote No that's good enuff for me. And if Grisly Adams is asking me to vote No then I don't care what it is, I'm voting Yes.


 

sorry it is not B*llox,

to tell you the truth I don't trust Bertie (or the rest), so why should I vote yes just because he tells me to?

I feel if FF/FG/Lab & so on want me to vote yes they should convince me.

also I feel that not voting is morally wrong.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



rmelly said:


> What are the positives?


Fair question. My sense is that there is not much positive _per se_. These are the necessary rules for the proper working of the enlarged club. If you join a club you are asked to sign up to the rules. The rules themselves will be a rather negative document but you gladly sign up to them for the benefits that flow from the club.

Responsible polititicians correctly are not spelling out the dire consequences of a "No" vote. For example they daren't mention that we can forget any sympathy for the continuance of our tax haven status. Thankfully, the irresponsible polititicians are asking us to vote "No" so by coincidence these dire consequences become an unmentionable. But read between the lines, Bertie (and he now has little politically to gain) says "No" would be a disaster.

We are simply fooling and indulging ourselves if we think we have the option of saying No.


----------



## ninsaga

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Of course the government could guarantee a yes result if they rolled out the electronic voting machines.....


----------



## redstar

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

I'm voting Yes - can't see any major reason why not. Too much scaremongering from the No side, most of which we have heard before previous treaty referenda.

Of course voting No is an option. France and Holland voted No to the Euro Constitution, and nothing bad happened to them. We got the Reform Treaty instead.


----------



## shnaek

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Harchibald said:


> We are simply fooling and indulging ourselves if we think we have the option of saying No.



Then the referendum is a sham and a waste of money and should be outed as such. Nobody appreciates it when their government calls them morons (which is what our government are doing if we are having a referendum with only one possible outcome).


----------



## noname

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Harchibald said:


> ....................."No" would be a disaster.


 

My question is, Why would NO be a disaster? without a reason, I would consider this scaremongering.

I would like to point out, that I am pro Europe & have never voted SF, i just don't like being told to vote YES......"because, well, we (bertie, Enda & the rest) said so & you should trust us"



ninsaga said:


> Of course the government could guarantee a yes result if they rolled out the electronic voting machines.....


 
yet another reason we should not always trust the all knowing politician


----------



## Teabag

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



noname said:


> My question is, Why would NO be a disaster? without a reason, I would consider this scaremongering.
> 
> I would like to point out, that I am pro Europe & have never voted SF, i just don't like being told to vote YES......"because, well, we (bertie, Enda & the rest) said so & you should trust us"



Politicians have to take a position on it.

Shnaek is right though, prob a waste of time/money. But Irish people like saying 'No' so it will be tight.


----------



## redstar

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

No harm in people voting no, but do it for informed reasons other than 'the politicians want us to vote yes'.


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



redstar said:


> No harm in people voting no, but do it for informed reasons other than 'the politicians want us to vote yes'.


I agree with this.  I believe that there is 'harm' in voting yes, but yes men (and ladies) should do it for informed reasons other than 'the politicians want us to vote yes'.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



shnaek said:


> Then the referendum is a sham and a waste of money and should be outed as such.


Absolutely agree. Unfortunately Dev's Bunreacht seems to require it. Nobody else in Europe has this dubious right and nobody seems to be complaining too much.


----------



## bond-007

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Harchibald said:


> Absolutely agree. Unfortunately Dev's Bunreacht seems to require it. Nobody else in Europe has this dubious right and nobody seems to be complaining too much.


Time to scrap Dev's Bunreacht and modernise for the 21st century rather than his blinkered views from the 1930's where the church ran every facet of Irish life?


----------



## noname

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



redstar said:


> No harm in people voting no, but do it for informed reasons other than 'the politicians want us to vote yes'.


 
of course you are correct, "the politicians want us to vote yes, so I will vote no" is not the way this should be looked at.

However I do not want to agree to something that I don't understand, and yes, I will make an effort to understand the issues between now and polling day.


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Harchibald said:


> Absolutely agree. Unfortunately Dev's Bunreacht seems to require it. Nobody else in Europe has this dubious right and nobody seems to be complaining too much.





bond-007 said:


> Time to scrap Dev's Bunreacht and modernise for the 21st century rather than his blinkered views from the 1930's where the church ran every facet of Irish life?


Methinks you are too quick to dismiss the Irish Constitution.  You will probably get your wish anyway as if there's a yes to Lisbon the Irish Constitution will be effectively obsolete.


----------



## colin79ie

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Recently in Zimbabwe, There was an election. The president didn't like the outcome so he ordered a recount.

RING ANY BELLS????


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



colin79ie said:


> Recently in Zimbabwe, There was an election. The president didn't like the outcome so he ordered a recount.
> 
> RING ANY BELLS????


 I think you're being a bit selective with that one there colin


----------



## cjh

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



noname said:


> My question is, Why would NO be a disaster? without a reason, I would consider this scaremongering.



NO would be a disaster (for bertie - because he'd never get that big job in europe)......


----------



## S.L.F

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



colin79ie said:


> Recently in Zimbabwe, There was an election. The president didn't like the outcome so he ordered a recount.



I agree we've seen this once with the Nice Treaty.

My view on that was the score was 1-1 so they should have had a decider first to 2.


----------



## ubiquitous

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



bond-007 said:


> Time to scrap Dev's Bunreacht and modernise for the 21st century rather than his blinkered views from the 1930's where the church ran every facet of Irish life?



That's odd. My history teacher told me in school that the provision in the 1937 Bunreacht recognising the "special position" of the Catholic Church was abolished by referendum in the early 1970s. He must have been telling me a porky.


----------



## bond-007

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

They may have removed it in 1973 but the churches influence still continues.


----------



## rmelly

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

The 'dire consequences' of a rejection are most definitely being overplayed. 

It is also important to note that we are the only country getting the opportunity to vote on the Treaty. Opinion polls in other countries suggest those not getting the opportunity to vote are not in favour of it, so maybe by us rejecting it there will be an across the board rethink, rather than a repackaging of the constitution.

What happened France and the Netherlands after rejecting the constitution? Did the 'great' experiment die? Was there a two tier Europe? Have these countries been ostracised?

The latest enlargement happened a few years ago, things haven't ground to a halt, so we can live without it being passed...

Plus it doesn't say much for our 'neighbours' and the EU as a whole if us exercising our democratic right in voting no was to result in us being ostracised, by-passed, ignored, made suffer etc - hardly what the founders had in mind...


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



rmelly said:


> . . it doesn't say much for our 'neighbours' and the EU as a whole if us exercising our democratic right in voting no was to result in us being ostracised, by-passed, ignored, made suffer etc - hardly what the founders had in mind...


A salient point.  

The decisions to rerun defeated Danish and Irish referenda, to ignore the Dutch and French NO's to the EU Constitution and the denial of a referendum on Lisbon in 26 of the 27 EU member states should illustrate to all that the architects of the New EU have no intention of letting democracy/the people derail their EU Project.  Lisbon is the point of no return for the peoples of Europe.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



michaelm said:


> A salient point.
> 
> The decisions to rerun defeated Danish and Irish referenda, to ignore the Dutch and French NO's to the EU Constitution and the denial of a referendum on Lisbon in 26 of the 27 EU member states should illustrate to all that the architects of the New EU have no intention of letting democracy/the people derail their EU Project.  Lisbon is the point of no return for the peoples of Europe.



Very few countries run referendums about anything.


----------



## rmelly

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Purple said:


> Very few countries run referendums about anything.


 
Not true for the original constitution - a total of 9 countries held or planned to hold referendums

4 Referendums were run (Spain, Luxembourg, France and Netherlands), plus 5 additional ones were planned but aborted (Denmark, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, United Kingdom)

9 out of 27 for the constitution, down to 1 out of 27 for the Lisbon Treaty...sends a nice message to the people of Europe about the faith their leaders have in the peoples ability/right to determine their future.


----------



## television

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

no


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



rmelly said:


> Not true for the original constitution - a total of 9 countries held or planned to hold referendums
> 
> 4 Referendums were run (Spain, Luxembourg, France and Netherlands), plus 5 additional ones were planned but aborted (Denmark, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, United Kingdom)
> 
> 9 out of 27 for the constitution, down to 1 out of 27 for the Lisbon Treaty...sends a nice message to the people of Europe about the faith their leaders have in the peoples ability/right to determine their future.



I don't know about Denmark, Poland or Portugal but in the UK there is no need for a referendum to change the constitution (since the Queen in parliament is sovereign, rather than the constitution, and so parliament can change that constitution). So basically the UK referendum proposal was a PR exercise by Tony Blaire and not much else.
In Poland’s case there is no explicit mention of sovereignty so EU treaties do not require referenda (since they adopted their current constitution in 1997 this omission may have been deliberate).


----------



## rmelly

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

There may not be a 'need' for it, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be one.

The numbers on the referendums for the constitution came from here: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty...itution_for_Europe#Ratification_of_the_Treaty

(Hope no one changes the contents...)

PR Exercise or not, it was planned...would he have ignored the result if they voted no, and gone ahead and ratified through parliament? If not then it wasn't a PR exercise. If he did ignore it his party would NEVER be elected again.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



rmelly said:


> There may not be a 'need' for it, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be one.



If there is no political or legal mechanism in a country to hold referenda then it is a very bad idea. Anything that dilutes the responsibility of elected leaders and diminishes their ability to lead (and be held to account for to account for their actions) is a bad thing.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

I agree with _Purple _again. 

Take the Brits, always flirting with the possibility of a referendum when a tough decision has to be made on say Europe or the Euro. 

This is political cowardice, if the politicians believe that, say, the Euro is a good thing they should proceed rather than use a referendum to shield themselves from any perceived unpopularity of the decision.

Interesting though that the Brits are promised a Ref on the Euro whilst Dev's Bunreacht was unconcerned about such worldy matters as the money in our pocket.


----------



## diarmuidc

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



rmelly said:


> It is also important to note that we are the only country getting the opportunity to vote on the Treaty.


Because it's a legal document that changes practically nothing in the EU. Granted SF/Libertas/some other fringe groups are trying to claim it as a threat to our ability to set our own tax rates, take our jobs and women etc... As Purple said, looking at who is opposing it is good enough for me to vote yes.


----------



## rmelly

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



diarmuidc said:


> changes practically nothing in the EU.


 
Why the fuss over it then? Why even propose a Treary that does practically nothing?



> Anything that dilutes the responsibility of elected leaders and diminishes their ability to lead (and be held to account for to account for their actions) is a bad thing.


 
Another good reason to vote against the Treaty. I'd rather the Dail lead - that's why we elected them, and they are accountable to us. Are the institutions of the EU?


----------



## diarmuidc

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



rmelly said:


> Why the fuss over it then? Why even propose a Treary that does practically nothing?


Because any amendments to the Irish require a referendum. There's even a wikipedia page on the *exact* changes!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland
What changes in particular do you not like?


----------



## rmelly

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



diarmuidc said:


> Because any amendments to the Irish require a referendum.


 
Hi, that's not what I asked - why is the Treaty itself required if it changes practically nothing - why is a few hundred pages required to change practically nothing?


----------



## shanegl

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

After a bit of research I've decided I'm voting Yes. The blatant scaremongering by the likes of Libertas have contributed to this decision as well. If I have to hear one more time about how we're "losing our commissioner" I think I might throw the radio out the window.


----------



## rmelly

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



shanegl said:


> If I have to hear one more time about how we're "losing our commissioner" I think I might throw the radio out the window.


 
But what will Charlie McCreevy do then? A yes vote is putting him out of a job - shame on you all.


----------



## rmelly

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



shanegl said:


> After a bit of research I've decided I'm voting Yes.


 
Can I ask why? Ignoring the not siding with loonies, anti scaremongering etc. What about the Treaty are you in favour of?


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



rmelly said:


> Ignoring the not siding with loonies, anti scaremongering etc. What about the Treaty are you in favour of?


----------



## television

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

will this treaty lead to privitasition of public services such as schools health care etc? If so im voting no.


----------



## GeneralZod

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

No it won't. 

Our domestic politicians are quite capable of doing that all by themselves if the fancy to do so takes them.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



television said:


> will this treaty lead to privitasition of public services such as schools health care etc? If so im voting no.



Why on earth did you think that?


----------



## BillK

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Further to harchibald's post, the Brits *were *promised a referendum in the labour party's manifesto before the last General Election. The Labour government has reneged on that promise.


----------



## television

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

OK believe the right wing argument for the treaty that says if crack pots in the left are voting against it then you should vote for. that stops you from actually looking into the treaty and makes it easier for creeping privitisation of public services. 

Purple there is a move towards privitisation in education and health policy in europe. this move is being supported by big business who see the money to be made in these services. 

if you intend to vote yes please do so because you understand the treaty and aggree with it. not because "if the crack pots in sinn fein and the socialists are voting NO i am going to vote yes argument" that really is facile. Of cource thats what the hegemonic powers that be would want you to think.

http://www.cla.purdue.edu/english/theory/marxism/terms/hegemony.html

there is plenty of evident that the treaty will lead to privitisation of key public services. Yes most is from radicle sources but i guess radicle sources are always wrong as history as shown.

http://www.socialistparty.net/pub/pages/socialist033mar08/2.html



and the left wing case for the treaty
[broken link removed]


----------



## rmelly

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

What would ACTUALLY happen if Ireland or indeed any of the 27 member states failed to ratify the Treaty?


----------



## television

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

same as what happens the last time. irish politicians say "people did not understand the treaty first time round lets give them another chance a year later" and in the mean time scaremonger about the consequences if we vote no a second time. thats democracy EU style.


----------



## rmelly

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

But at an EU level - is there a Plan B? Or have they ignored the possibility, just like they did for the constitution? Would we end up with a further cut down version of the original constitution put forward for ratification in a few years? Or would we end up with a 'two tier' europe?


----------



## television

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

the eu is on a course to further integration and privitisation. nothing is going to stop that. this treaty is rubbing staping that agenda.


----------



## shanegl

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



rmelly said:


> Can I ask why? Ignoring the not siding with loonies, anti scaremongering etc. What about the Treaty are you in favour of?


 
Basically, the Treaty will enable a smoother operation of the enlarged union. There's nothing in it that I disagree with. The scaremongering is unjustified.

From the SWP website:
"The Lisbon Treaty lays the basis for a further extension of privatisation. It calls for a system in the ‘internal market’ to ensure ‘that competition is not distorted’ and calls for ‘uniformity in measures of liberalisation.’"

That's a big leap to privatisation they're taking there. Not that I'd have a problem with it anyway.

No distortion of competition, uniform liberalisation? Sounds great. Bring it on! 

That's an excellent set of rebuttals on the Labour website.

There will probably be a No vote though.


----------



## GeneralZod

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



csirl said:


> Where do you start? The EU Commission is not elected, yet it makes decisions that should have democratic accountability. The seats in the EU Parliament are not allocated evenly - some countries have more seats per population that others (I know Ireland is one of these, but that doesnt make it right). Also some countries with similar populations e.g. France & Poland, do not have a similar number of seats. There is also an attitude that if something wont fly with the Parliament, which has some democratic accountability, then just use the Commission to get it done. I know some people will argue that the Commission is appointed by various Governments etc. etc. and therefore is democratic because the Governments were elected. But I think that this argument is weak as the Commission is too many degrees of separation away from any sort of democratic accountability to make it democratic.



The Labour Party webpage on [broken link removed] makes a good riposte to that.



> The Reform Treaty gives a greater role for the Oireachtas and other national parliaments in screening new proposals. If nine parliaments believe a proposal breaches the subsidiarity principle, whereby decisions must be taken as close as possible to the citizen, the Commission must explain it further or table a redraft. If 15 have such concerns and if either half the Member States or MEPs agree,the proposal falls.
> 95% of European laws, including justice and home affairs issues for the first time, become subject toamendment or veto by MEPs ('co-decision').
> It provides for greater transparency by insisting that national ministers meeting in Council mustmeet in public when discussing and adopting laws.
> All EU spending, including agricultural spending for the first time, must be approved by MEPs.
> It provides for a 'Citizens Initiative' whereby one million EU citizens can request action by the EU inareas of EU competence.
> It provides for the election of the European Commission President and the appointment of theCommission by the European Parliament. EU Prime Ministers will continue to nominate the candidate for Commission President but must take account of the political balance arising from the preceding European Parliament elections (e.g. if the Socialist Group emerges as the largest group in theEP after the June 2009 elections, the next nominee for Commission President is likely to be a socialist). These changes will make it clear that the Commission is not an 'unaccountable bureaucracy' butan executive dependent on the continued confidence of MEPs, who can dismiss it.
> It ensures that small countries like Ireland will continue to enjoy a disproportionate weight withinthe Council and the Parliament.
> It provides for regular talks between the European level Social Partners and for a structured dialoguebetween the EU and civic society, including religious and non-confessional organisations.


----------



## shnaek

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



rmelly said:


> But what will Charlie McCreevy do then? A yes vote is putting him out of a job - shame on you all.



Strangely enough this is actually a good point. Charlie is the one fighting against tax harmonisation in Europe.


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



diarmuidc said:


> Because any amendments to the Irish [Constitution] require a referendum.


Indeed.  The DFA booklet poses the same generic (wrong) question and gives the same answer.  i.e Q. Why are we having a referendum? A. Because a referendum is required when we want to change the Constitution.  The correct question is; Q. Why does the Lisbon Treaty necessitate a referendum? A. The Lisbon Treaty dilutes Irish sovereignty and therefore requires one (as per the Crotty judgment).





rmelly said:


> But at an EU level - is there a Plan B?


Lisbon is Plan B. The Constitution was Plan A.  A 'NO' may herald a second referendum or precipitate a Plan C; just maybe they'd take a step back and reconsider if Lisbon is what the peoples of Europe want rather than just what Politicians and Business interests want.


----------



## diarmuidc

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



shanegl said:


> Basically, the Treaty will enable a smoother operation of the enlarged union. There's nothing in it that I disagree with. The scaremongering is unjustified.



All the reasoning and facts in the world will not stop people from claiming that every and anything will be allowed by the Lisbon treaty. We may as well run with it. Don't you know that the Lisbon treaty will force the GAA to become a professional game and that Guinness will be banned?


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



diarmuidc said:


> We may as well run with it.


The above would be just silly if it weren't one of the handful of core arguments for Lisbon - along with 'trust us', 'Europe is great' and 'a NO would be a disaster'.  A reasoned debate based on facts would be welcome but we're unlikely to get that because it's such a bad deal for Ireland.  I can't but think that committed Yes men are dismayed at the prospect of Joe Public wising up to what the Treaty is really about.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



michaelm said:


> I can't but think that committed Yes men are dismayed at the prospect of Joe Public wising up to what the Treaty is really about.


Do you really think that Joe Public will take the time to make an informed decision either way?


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Purple said:


> Do you really think that Joe Public will take the time to make an informed decision either way?


I hope so, at least a sizable tranche anyway.  People shouldn't sleepwalk into the polling booth; this may well be the most important vote of most peoples lives.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



michaelm said:


> I hope so, at least a sizable tranche anyway.  People shouldn't sleepwalk into the polling booth;


 I agree that they should, I don't think they will.


michaelm said:


> this may well be the most important vote of most peoples lives.


I very much doubt that it will have any discernable impact on the lives of 95% of people.


----------



## television

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Purple you may be interested in this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



television said:


> Purple you may be interested in this
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony



Yea, I know the idea. I don't like it though; that's why I like representative democracy.


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Purple said:


> I very much doubt that it will have any discernable impact on the lives of 95% of people.


Not immediately.  There is a time-lag before the effects of EU Treaties, Directives and Regulations are felt but by then it's too late as EU laws and decisions are effectively, from an Irish point of view, irreversible.  e.g Next year mothers across Ireland will be baking cakes to raise money to pay for school water charges, which were demanded by the EU some years ago and regrettably agreed to by an Irish minister.  

I read The Charter of Fundamental Rights to which we'll be signing up under Lisbon with no possibility of dropping it in the future; it's language is very woolly and we'll be stuck with whatever interpretation the European Court has of it. 





Purple said:


> . . that's why I like representative democracy.


Really?  Then how could you support Lisbon?  Surely you see that Lisbon reduces Ireland's relative voting weight in the EU (from 1/4 of the bigger states to 1/15 - 1/20) while simultaneously handing many more areas over to the EU subject to QMV.  Most of our laws will be handed down from Europe, if we don't like them then there's little we can do, regardless of who we elect they won't be able to change such laws, hardly representative.


----------



## television

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

purple i am not saying or asking if you like. I am saying that this is what we have. A dominant political class who are using/fostering apathy to bring about change that is undemocratic. Dod you seriously think we have true representitive democracy accross Europe?


----------



## diarmuidc

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



michaelm said:


> Surely you see that Lisbon reduces Ireland's relative voting weight in the EU (from 1/4 of the bigger states to 1/15 - 1/20)


Surely that's more democratic (one man one vote) not less


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



television said:


> purple i am not saying or asking if you like. I am saying that this is what we have. A dominant political class who are using/fostering apathy to bring about change that is undemocratic. Dod you seriously think we have true representitive democracy accross Europe?


 It's as representative as people want it to be. If the electorate choose not to participate that's not the fault of those who do. I am not politically active but I have the upmost respect for those who are, particularly at local party level. They are the lifeblood of our democracy and yet many of them are dismissed as hacks or self serving cronies. When this changes we will get better government, 'till then we are stuck with the one we deserve.
Hegemony presupposes that the plebs do not have the opportunity to become part of the ruling class. This is patently not the case in Ireland (or most other EU countries). Any low born, ill-educated badly connected citizen (like me) can become the leader of the country. All one has to do is work your ass off for years in the background before seeking election to a very insecure high pressure job. I for one know I’m not up to the job so I would not attempt it but that does  not mean that I do not have the right to try if I am so inclined.



diarmuidc said:


> Surely that's more democratic (one man one vote) not less


 You got there before me.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



michaelm said:


> Not immediately.  There is a time-lag before the effects of EU Treaties, Directives and Regulations are felt but by then it's too late as EU laws and decisions are effectively, from an Irish point of view, irreversible.  e.g Next year mothers across Ireland will be baking cakes to raise money to pay for school water charges, which were demanded by the EU some years ago and regrettably agreed to by an Irish minister.
> 
> I read The Charter of Fundamental Rights to which we'll be signing up under Lisbon with no possibility of dropping it in the future; it's language is very woolly and we'll be stuck with whatever interpretation the European Court has of it. Really?  Then how could you support Lisbon?  Surely you see that Lisbon reduces Ireland's relative voting weight in the EU (from 1/4 of the bigger states to 1/15 - 1/20) while simultaneously handing many more areas over to the EU subject to QMV.  Most of our laws will be handed down from Europe, if we don't like them then there's little we can do, regardless of who we elect they won't be able to change such laws, hardly representative.



The reason we will end up paying water charges is to pay for benchmarking. The government will use the EU as a smoke screen but the facts stand.

Most of our laws are not handed down from Europe. In fact none of our laws are handed down from Europe but they have to comply with EU court rulings. I cannot think of one incident where change which was forced upon us that has not proven to be positive, (or perhaps you think that homosexuality should still be a crime? ) Do bear in mind that I am a pro-EU social liberal with a strong dislike for nationalism but have strong Republican tendencies (but not the stupid intellectually vacuous Irish nationalist brand).


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



diarmuidc said:


> Surely that's more democratic (one man one vote) not less


It's not in Ireland's interest or in the interest of any of the smaller countries, Lisbon is a power grab by the bigger states.  Most voters aren't aware of how Lisbon drastically reduces Ireland's voting strength.  Such information doesn't appear in the DFA booklet or any of the political party pro-Lisbon leaflets I've seen, no mention of any trade-off or downside.  If Lisbon were passed after a robust, honest and open debate then fine.  But the Yes men don't want the people to understand what's in the treaty.  It's depressing really.


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Purple said:


> The reason we will end up paying water charges is to pay for benchmarking.


Anything agreed or passed by QMV at EU level is effectively set in stone.  No government we elect can undo any such EU laws or regulations.





Purple said:


> Do bear in mind that I am a pro-EU social liberal with a strong dislike for nationalism but have strong Republican tendencies (but not the stupid intellectually vacuous Irish nationalist brand).


If Lisbon is pushed through you may as well forget your (intelligent intellectually worthy, no doubt ) Republican tendencies as Ireland will be more an EU province than a Republic.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



michaelm said:


> Anything agreed or passed by QMV at EU level is effectively set in stone.  No government we elect can undo any such EU laws or regulations.


 I am in favour of water charges, and other environmental taxes) as long as there is a mechanism in place to help those on low incomes. 



michaelm said:


> If Lisbon is pushed through you may as well forget your (intelligent intellectually worthy, no doubt ) Republican tendencies as Ireland will be more an EU province than a Republic.


 As long as the EU is a republic I will be happy to be part of the United States of Europe.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

I heard RTE advertising its Lisbon website and I gave it a go. 

It features 5 video head to heads on the "issues". You just need to look at the respective teams to make up your mind. 

The NO consisted of a variety of looney tunes from Mary Lou to Joe Higgins.

The Yes side only feature one nutter, a Deirdre de Burgha, who worried me a little by insisting that the LB was super green. Thankfully my fears were assuaged by Patricia McKenna who insists the EU will be no more green with LB than without.


----------



## Simeon

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Purple said:


> I am in favour of water charges, and other environmental taxes) as long as there is a mechanism in place to help those on low incomes.
> 
> As long as the EU is a republic I will be happy to be part of the United States of Europe.


Ditto.


----------



## Caveat

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Purple said:


> I am a pro-EU social liberal with a strong dislike for nationalism but have strong Republican tendencies (but not the stupid intellectually vacuous Irish nationalist brand).


 
Now if only that could be distilled into a snappy acronym or something...


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Purple said:


> I am in favour of water charges, and other environmental taxes) as long as there is a mechanism in place to help those on low incomes.


Water charges, specifically, are not the point, but rather that decisions become set in stone and no government we elect can change them (at home, if you will)





Purple said:


> As long as the EU is a republic I will be happy to be part of the United States of Europe.


You'll be voting Yes with your eyes open, can't argue with that.  My issue is that many people, rather than find out for themselves, will 'trust' the politicians (who are hiding that Lisbon creates an EU State of which we all become citizens, the power transfer to Brussels, militarisation, tax implications etc).  Do you not agree that the politicians are more concerned with passing Lisbon, whatever it takes, than with explaining what it contains and what the trade-offs are?  I suppose I just favour a Europe which is about ease of travel and fair trade rather than the Lisbon super-state model, and that we should retain the ability to elect an Irish government that can make or repeal laws for Ireland and which are relevant to Irish citizens.


----------



## csirl

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *csirl* http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=616688#post616688
> _Where do you start? The EU Commission is not elected, yet it makes decisions that should have democratic accountability. The seats in the EU Parliament are not allocated evenly - some countries have more seats per population that others (I know Ireland is one of these, but that doesnt make it right). Also some countries with similar populations e.g. France & Poland, do not have a similar number of seats. There is also an attitude that if something wont fly with the Parliament, which has some democratic accountability, then just use the Commission to get it done. I know some people will argue that the Commission is appointed by various Governments etc. etc. and therefore is democratic because the Governments were elected. But I think that this argument is weak as the Commission is too many degrees of separation away from any sort of democratic accountability to make it democratic. _
> 
> The Labour Party webpage on [broken link removed] makes a good riposte to that.
> 
> Quote:
> The Reform Treaty gives a greater role for the Oireachtas and other national parliaments in screening new proposals. If nine parliaments believe a proposal breaches the subsidiarity principle, whereby decisions must be taken as close as possible to the citizen, the Commission must explain it further or table a redraft. If 15 have such concerns and if either half the Member States or MEPs agree,the proposal falls.
> 95% of European laws, including justice and home affairs issues for the first time, become subject toamendment or veto by MEPs ('co-decision').
> It provides for greater transparency by insisting that national ministers meeting in Council mustmeet in public when discussing and adopting laws.
> All EU spending, including agricultural spending for the first time, must be approved by MEPs.
> It provides for a 'Citizens Initiative' whereby one million EU citizens can request action by the EU inareas of EU competence.
> It provides for the election of the European Commission President and the appointment of theCommission by the European Parliament. EU Prime Ministers will continue to nominate the candidate for Commission President but must take account of the political balance arising from the preceding European Parliament elections (e.g. if the Socialist Group emerges as the largest group in theEP after the June 2009 elections, the next nominee for Commission President is likely to be a socialist). These changes will make it clear that the Commission is not an 'unaccountable bureaucracy' butan executive dependent on the continued confidence of MEPs, who can dismiss it.
> It ensures that small countries like Ireland will continue to enjoy a disproportionate weight withinthe Council and the Parliament.
> It provides for regular talks between the European level Social Partners and for a structured dialoguebetween the EU and civic society, including religious and non-confessional organisations.


 
You've actually proven one of the points that I have for voting no i.e. that it is not democratic as not every EU citizen has an equal say.



> It ensures that small countries like Ireland will continue to enjoy a disproportionate weight withinthe Council and the Parliament.


----------



## csirl

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

A lot of pro-Yes people are going around saying that we should vote Yes because the EU has been good to Ireland to date.

I see this as a reason to vote No. If the EU, as it currently stands, is good for Ireland, I see no reason to change it. 

I also have issue with all the Yes people scaremongering and giving people the impression that we have to vote Yes or we will be kicked out of the EU. This is not a referendum on Ireland's EU membership and Ireland will still be in the EU even if we vote no.

The world will not stop if we vote no. Plenty of other EU members have rejected things in the past and the world still turns. People like the UK, who have been members as long as us, havent even got the Euro yet.


----------



## television

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



> Any low born, ill-educated badly connected citizen (like me) can become the leader of the country. All one has to do is work your ass off for years in the background before seeking election to a very insecure high pressure job


Do you seriously think that is the case purple. Yes its possible but not very. look at the political family dynasties in this country and tell me how easy it is for the average ill educated person to get anywhere in politics. 

You say you understand the term Hegagmony. Your last post on the topic does not really suggest you do.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



television said:


> Do you seriously think that is the case purple. Yes its possible but not very. look at the political family dynasties in this country and tell me how easy it is for the average ill educated person to get anywhere in politics.
> 
> You say you understand the term Hegagmony. Your last post on the topic does not really suggest you do.


Our current President and last prime minister were not part of a political dynasty. The fact that some families are politically active will make it more likely that their members will become politicians. Without such families our democracy would not work. Such families should be thanked for their public service, not subjected to innuendo and ridicule.
This does not mean that those who choose to enter politics cannot (or do not) do well without having well connected families.


----------



## television

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

you really think we should thank those families? When their sons and daughters are promoted ahead of people of the same ability for nothing other than nepotism. Sorry I dont buy the public service argument either. And even if their motives are honourable it does not get away from the fact that they are promoted pushed into politics because of family ties. That is not democratic. it is how ruling classes have always emerged through history. Also retoric such as yours Purple ie.,


> The fact that some families are politically active will make it more likely that their members will become politicians.
> Without such families our democracy would not work. Such families should be thanked for their public service, not subjected to innuendo and ridicule.


 
Allows this abuse of power to continue unchecked and go unquestioned.


----------



## television

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



> This does not mean that those who choose to enter politics cannot (or do not) do well without having well connected families.
> __________________


 
But it makes it considerably harder all other things being equal.


----------



## ubiquitous

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

How many of the current crop of Govt Ministers had a parent as TD or Senator? Only a few by my count - Lenihan, Coughlan, Hanafin, Cowen. Any more?


----------



## television

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



> How many of the current crop of Govt Ministers had a parent as TD or Senator? Only a few by my count - Lenihan, Coughlan, Hanafin, Cowen. Any more?


 
By your own rationale thats 27% of the current cabinate. Or are you being ironic?


----------



## television

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Add eamon O Cuive brings it up to 33%


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



television said:


> By your own rationale thats 27% of the current cabinate. Or are you being ironic?


 I think that all of the above have shown the ability to hold the office that they do. Any government which was constructed based on nepotism would not last long.


----------



## television

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Your not getting my point. Yes they all have ability but they all happpen to be from political families and overall that is not good for democracy as it places power in the hands of an elete few. Several kings in history had ability is that a reason to uphold monarchy? 

If we are being realistic here these sons and daughters of politicans are being gentley nugged throughout thier life in the right direction and given that ever so slightly wink and a nod and a little bit of help. their qualities pushed to the fore by politically powerful parents and associates while their failings ignored. Trouble is that equation is reversed for thier political compeditors in thier own parties. All the while the matra of "hes/shes got there throught their own ability not throught parental support" is being spouted.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



television said:


> Your not getting my point. Yes they all have ability but they all happpen to be from political families and overall that is not good for democracy as it places power in the hands of an elete few. Several kings in history had ability is that a reason to uphold monarchy?
> 
> If we are being realistic here these sons and daughters of politicans are being gentley nugged throughout thier life in the right direction and given that ever so slightly wink and a nod and a little bit of help. their qualities pushed to the fore by politically powerful parents and associates while their failings ignored. Trouble is that equation is reversed for thier political compeditors in thier own parties. All the while the matra of "hes/shes got there throught their own ability not throught parental support" is being spouted.


You are ignoring the fact that they have to stand for election by the people. 
Are you suggesting that the children of politicians should be barred from standing for public office? If not then your gripe is the fact that the majority of people are too lazy or apathetic to get involved. That's not the fault of those who do get involved. 
Ironically those who are politically active would be the first to welcome more interest from the general public but putting up election posters on rainy evenings and knocking on doors to get abused by disgruntled punters during elections and giving up your evenings a few times a month the rest of the year for local party meetings is the reality for most party members.
There are a number of posters on AAM who do this, one in particular that I am aware of, and I feel nothing but gratitude toward them for doing something that I am not willing to do.


----------



## diarmuidc

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



television said:


> Do you seriously think that is the case purple. Yes its possible but not very. look at the political family dynasties in this country and tell me how easy it is for the average ill educated person to get anywhere in politics.



They still have to be voted in!



michaelm said:


> Lisbon is a power grab by the bigger states. .


Can you spell out *exactly* what you mean here?


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



television said:


> If we are being realistic here these sons and daughters of politicans are being gentley nugged throughout thier life in the right direction and given that ever so slightly wink and a nod and a little bit of help. their qualities pushed to the fore by politically powerful parents and associates while their failings ignored. Trouble is that equation is reversed for thier political compeditors in thier own parties. All the while the matra of "hes/shes got there throught their own ability not throught parental support" is being spouted.



Just to comment further on that; undoubtedly the member of the current cabinet with the strongest political lineage is Brian Lenahan. He also has a first class honours degree from Trinity College, another from Cambridge, lectured in law in Trinity and is a barrister (indeed a senior council). This, I would think, is enough to allow for the chance that the man is not a fool and might have some ability. I suggest that the fact that he was probably immersed in politics from an early age can only add to his CV, not detract from it.
I don't know Brian Lenahan from a hole in the wall, I just looked him up on Google.


----------



## television

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

you are still not getting my point



> Yes they all have ability but they all happpen to be from political families and overall that is not good for democracy as it places power in the hands of an elete few. Several kings in history had ability is that a reason to uphold monarchy


 
If i want I could go down through the literaly hundreds of examples (not exaggerating) of sons/daughters of politicans who got elected who are for want of a better phrase "of dubious intellect".



> I suggest that the fact that he was probably immersed in politics from an early age can only add to his CV, not detract from it.


 
immersed himself in the influence, the winks, the nods, the nudging in the right direction.  And Ok if you want to base your whole argument on one shining uncorruptable example of Brian Lenihan then how could I argue with you. Although I could direct you back to his brother Conor as a pretty effective counter argument .


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



television said:


> you are still not getting my point


 I hear what you are saying but I don't hear what you suggest as a fix. Those who are interested in politics get involved in politics and get elected. What else do you expect? 



television said:


> If i want I could go down through the literaly hundreds of examples (not exaggerating) of sons/daughters of politicans who got elected who are for want of a better phrase "of dubious intellect".


 I can list off politicians who do not do well in office but I can't think of any of them that are stupid. Do remember that it's a very difficult job.


----------



## television

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

I did not say they were stupid. 

True what you say about a solution. its a difficult one alright.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



television said:


> I did not say they were stupid.


No, you said that they were "of dubious intellect". What does that mean so?


----------



## redstar

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Libertas are saying that the huge cost to business of EU regulations is  a reason to vote NO to the Treaty. Yet the business community (IBEC, ISME) seems to be in favour of a Yes vote. Who is right here ? Is a Yes vote bad for Irish business or not ?


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



redstar said:


> Libertas are saying that the huge cost to business of EU regulations is  a reason to vote NO to the Treaty. Yet the business community (IBEC, ISME) seems to be in favour of a Yes vote. Who is right here ? Is a Yes vote bad for Irish business or not ?



This is another utter red-herring from Libertas


----------



## Simeon

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



ajapale said:


> Now this is my kind of Europe!
> 
> The capital of the Atlantic Zone would be Lisbon.


According to this map, a swathe incorporating Middlesex, Oxfordshire and Warwickshire (I think) are already on the mainland. Zut alors!!!!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Why are FG using the same wax foto of Enda, that lost them the election, in their Lisbon Yes posters?  Do they secretly want a No vote?


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Harchibald said:


> Why are FG using the same wax foto of Enda, that lost them the election, in their Lisbon Yes posters?  Do they secretly want a No vote?


 The camera never lies


----------



## GeneralZod

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



csirl said:


> A lot of pro-Yes people are going around saying that we should vote Yes because the EU has been good to Ireland to date.
> 
> I see this as a reason to vote No. If the EU, as it currently stands, is good for Ireland, I see no reason to change it.



That is an over simplification of that yes argument. The pro-yes people point out that at every previous Euro referendum they've been right and the no people were wrong. Since the no camp are using the same euro sceptic arguments now that they've used on every previous occasion the yes camp are inviting the electorate to conclude that the no-camp are wrong again.

Voting no in the hope that the EU will remain static is both unrealistic and ignores the many positive aspects of the reform treaty such as greater democratic accountability to the the European parliament and greater protection against unilaterally imposed corporate tax rates.



csirl said:


> I also have issue with all the Yes people scaremongering and giving people the impression that we have to vote Yes or we will be kicked out of the EU. This is not a referendum on Ireland's EU membership and Ireland will still be in the EU even if we vote no.



No one in the yes camp is arguing that. They are however pointing out the we'll lose the ability to shape events in our own interest as the rest of Europe will not stand still if we vote no.



csirl said:


> The world will not stop if we vote no. Plenty of other EU members have rejected things in the past and the world still turns. People like the UK, who have been members as long as us, havent even got the Euro yet.



Yes the world won't stop but we'll be in a much more difficult environment. A no from France, Germany or the UK can hold things up. But a no from Ireland to the whole programme will marginalise us. Ireland needs to use its veto selectively on narrower issues in partnership with other member countries sharing common interests on whatever the issue is.


----------



## shanegl

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Yep, Ireland needs to pick its fights. This isn't one of them. On the issue of previous No campaigns, how about the Maastricht treaty? Remember all the scaremongering about being drafted into a Euro army?      Its been 16 years!


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

There's no getting away from the fact that Lisbon shifts power to the bigger states, centralizes decision making and is in effect a constitutional foundation for a United States of Europe.  

If people want that and want to vote for it that's fine.  It irks me that the Yes camp won't be honest with the people in relation to this, although I can understand their reluctance.  Any Yes people here prepared to agree with my first sentence above?


----------



## redstar

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



michaelm said:


> There's no getting away from the fact that Lisbon shifts power to the bigger states, centralizes decision making and is in effect a constitutional foundation for a United States of Europe.
> 
> If people want that and want to vote for it that's fine.  It irks me that the Yes camp won't be honest with the people in relation to this, although I can understand their reluctance.  Any Yes people here prepared to agree with my first sentence above?



Sure,I'll be voting Yes because I fully support any changes that drive us towards a United States of Europe or similar, federal arrangement. The bigger states will have more clout - thats democracy though, isn't it ? If the treaty is voted down in Ireland, then it fails to be adopted because 1 out of 27 states says no. Is that democratic ?

How does California or Vermont 'suffer' by being part of the USA ?


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



redstar said:


> Sure,I'll be voting Yes because I fully support any changes that drive us towards a United States of Europe or similar, federal arrangement.


Anyone who shares your views should vote Yes.  Aren't you even slightly uncomfortable with how the politicians are mis-selling the Treaty?





redstar said:


> The bigger states will have more clout - thats democracy though, isn't it ?


Yes, if you believe in a one-size-fits-all approach where laws passed will reflect what the big states want (Ireland will be irrelevant with less than 1% of a vote under QMV).





redstar said:


> If the treaty is voted down in Ireland, then it fails to be adopted because 1 out of 27 states says no. Is that democratic ?


This is as per the EU's own rules.  Where the lack of democracy come into it is that France and Holland have already rejected essentially the same treaty and that 26 countries are denying their people a say - our politicians would deny us a say if it weren't for our constitution.  It is telling that the European Parliament voted down a motion to respect the outcome of the Irish Referendum (Dublin MEP, Frank Ross being one of those voting down the motion - back in the day that would have been treason and would have carried a heavy penalty).  Also telling is that Brian Cowen has threatened to expel any conscientious objectors from his party and that he won't commit to one referendum only on this issue.


----------



## redstar

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



michaelm said:


> Anyone who shares your views should vote Yes.  Aren't you even slightly uncomfortable with how the politicians are mis-selling the Treaty?


Yes. 
Both sides are using emotive and irrelevant points to push their case. I'll research the details for myself and make up my own mind. I ignore what the politicians say.



> Yes, if you believe in a one-size-fits-all approach where laws passed will reflect what the big states want (Ireland will be irrelevant with less than 1% of a vote under QMV).



The states within Europe will still have a lot more power than those within , say, the USA.
National parliaments will be able to review proposed EU legislation and make changes or reject them. Currently, this is not the case. Post-Treaty, national parliaments will have more influence than now.
In Ireland, we will still have referenda to change anything in our constitution.




> This is as per the EU's own rules.


True. Which is why the Lisbon Treaty is necessary to change those rules.



> Where the lack of democracy come into it is that France and Holland have already rejected essentially the same treaty and that 26 countries are denying their people a say - our politicians would deny us a say if it weren't for our constitution.



They rejected it, so it had to be changed. This is the Constitution Mk2. The fact that countries are not putting this to their own people is a matter for them - The people elected their Govts knowing their position on EU integration.



> It is telling that the European Parliament voted down a motion to respect the outcome of the Irish Referendum (Dublin MEP, Frank Ross being one of those voting down the motion - back in the day that would have been treason and would have carried a heavy penalty).


What did the motion actually mean ? If we voted Yes or No what would it mean in practice if the EU Parliament added the words "respected the outcome of the Irish Referendum" to the Corbett Report on the Lisbon Treaty . Its completely meaningless. I'm not surprised MEPs did not approve to add it.



> Also telling is that Brian Cowen has threatened to expel any conscientious objectors from his party and that he won't commit to one referendum only on this issue.



Well, he has to show who's boss, doesn't he. Political muscle-flexing from a new leader.


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

This sums it up for me.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



michaelm said:


> This sums it up for me.


Okay so that arrogant young isolationist brit tries to make a name for himself with some very cheap shots. I cringe when a brit fascist praises paddies and advises them how to vote.

Of course this is the EU constitution re-packaged but without making the mistake of it being subject to the lottery of multiple referenda. The only remaining random element is the Oirish.

Of course we are not having referenda because we are afraid of the (random) outcomes especially with multiple referenda. That's why we don't have referenda on, for example, the Finance Act.

The fact is there will remain so many protections for regional idiosynchratic positions such as our own on neutrality and tax, that the EU will remain a far way short of the cohesive entity that is the United States.


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Harchibald said:


> Okay so that arrogant young isolationist brit tries to make a name for himself with some very cheap shots. I cringe when a brit fascist praises paddies and advises them how to vote.


Indeed, anyone who opposes Lisbon is either in league with the US military, an ultra right-wing fundamentalist, a goose stepping fascist, an extreme left-wing nutbar, an isolationist, confused, anti-European . . have I missed any?  

Is it not possible that they've actually read the treaty and are concerned that too much power and decision making is being centralised and that this is a bad deal for Ireland?  The spokesmen for the Yes campaigns don't deal with the specifics of the treaty, they play the man not the ball, so to speak.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



michaelm said:


> The spokesmen for the Yes campaigns don't deal with the specifics of the treaty, they play the man not the ball, so to speak.


I think many on both sides do this.


----------



## S.L.F

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

I just find it interesting that people who have never read the treaty are voting for it.
Our very own leader, Brian, who is a solicitor and should know better hasn't read it and he's telling us to vote for it.
People shouldn't sign a document without understanding it.

Has anybody posting here actually read the treaty?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

_MaichaelM_, I didn't read the Treaty. I did read this leaflet posted to all homes which factually sets out the main thrust. All seemed fairly harmless stuff to me. Of course, we are diluting some of our current influence so as to make this thing work better. We retain our veto on neutrality and tax.

There are 27 countries in the EU. We have 26 counties in the RoI so it is easy to conceive of an analogue. Imagine if every amendment to our constitution had to be ratified by every county. There would simply never be any amendments passed. Dun Laoghaire would veto every conservative amendment and Donegal would veto every liberal amendment. It is really silly that Ireland is allowed this self indulgence of a referendum, and if we abuse that indulgence by saying No, there will surely be ramifications for our very privileged "outs" and concessions within the EU.


----------



## teachai

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Whats the point in voting? If we vote "No" the government will tell us we didn't understand what we were voting on and ask us to vote again on the same subject in 6 months time


----------



## csirl

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



> Indeed, anyone who opposes Lisbon is either in league with the US military, an ultra right-wing fundamentalist, a goose stepping fascist, an extreme left-wing nutbar, an isolationist, confused, anti-European . . have I missed any?


 
People who believe in democracy.


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Harchibald said:


> It is really silly that Ireland is allowed this self indulgence of a referendum, and if we abuse that indulgence by saying No, there will surely be ramifications for our very privileged "outs" and concessions within the EU.


Allowed? Self indulgence? Abuse? This is crazy talk.

If the government wants to sanction the creation of an EU legal entity(state) with a President and Foreign Minister, and make the people citizens of that state, and hand over many decision making powers to that state while diluting they're own influence then the least they can do is to ask the people if that is what they want.  For 26 of the 27 EU states it really is a case of the Politicians imposing their will on the people they're supposed to represent.  Luckily for the Irish, the constitution has prevented the government from imposing their will so they're faced with trying to push it through, whatever it takes.


----------



## contemporary

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

the country hasnt been independent for 100 years and we cant wait to hand even more power to an unelected body (the commission). I'm voting No, I might not like the irish politicians but at least I can  affect their future , not like these european boyos


----------



## csirl

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Can anyone explain what purpose the Commission have other than as a mechanism for getting things passed that would not fly in the Parliament?

And I dont want the stock answer that the Commission staff are the equivalent of civil servants who propose legislation etc. for the EU - the Parliament has its own staff who are the equivalent of civil servants who propose legislation etc. At EU meetings - I mean the day to day mundane ones, not those attended by MEPs or Ministers etc. - you have the bizarre situation whereby Commission "civil servants" and Parliament "civil servants" are seperately represented and quite often have very different views from one another.

It would like if, in this country, as well as having Government Departments staff by civil servants who answer to a Minister from the Dail, that you also had a second group of similar Government Departments with similar powers and responsibilities working of a different hymm sheet and not accountable to the Dail.


----------



## redstar

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



S.L.F said:


> I just find it interesting that people who have never read the treaty are voting for it.



I just find it interesting that people who have never read the treaty are voting against it, and thereby blocking it for the rest of the EU.

Surely its crazy to have  a referendum at all on something that no one has actually read !!

The Referendum Commission is basically reading it for us, and their booklet is what most people will base their decisions on. Rightly or wrongly, but thats the way it is.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



csirl said:


> Can anyone explain what purpose the Commission have other than as a mechanism for getting things passed that would not fly in the Parliament? And I dont want the stock answer that the Commission staff are the equivalent of civil servants.


I looked up the comic distributed by the RC. The Commission don't seem to pass anything. They propose legislation which has then to be passed by Parliament and Council. They are the equivalent of civil servants.


----------



## S.L.F

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



redstar said:


> I just find it interesting that people who have never read the treaty are voting against it, and thereby blocking it for the rest of the EU.
> 
> Surely its crazy to have  a referendum at all on something that no one has actually read !!
> 
> The Referendum Commission is basically reading it for us, and their booklet is what most people will base their decisions on. Rightly or wrongly, but thats the way it is.



Why is that the way is is?

First of all I don't live in the rest of the EU. What happens *here *is what concerns me.

Secondly you are quite correct it is crazy that people will vote for something they haven't even read. I would have thought stupid would be closer to the mark.

Thirdly you should learn, "never sign a form unless you understand it".
I have read what the govt appointed Referendum Commission have said and as far as I can see its all opinions not hard facts.

I want to know what I am voting for not to be bamboozled into making bad choices just because it suits people who haven't even read the treaty themselves.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Either read the treaty (or the RC booklet) and take the time to understand it and then vote accordingly or take your lead from the politicians that you voted for and elected to represent you.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



S.L.F said:


> I have read what the govt appointed Referendum Commission have said and as far as I can see its all opinions not hard facts.


 
You must have got a different booklet from me. My booklet is starkly devoid of opinion or argument. 

Take for example the question _"What happens if you vote No?"_ Answer: _"The EU will continue to operate under its present rules."_ Is that an opinion or a fact? Personally I would have preferred an opinion along the lines of _"What would really be likely to happen? How would such a decision rebound on Ireland etc. etc.?"_


----------



## bond-007

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

There will have to be a second booklet from the Referendum Commission setting out the stalls for and against.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



bond-007 said:


> There will have to be a second booklet from the Referendum Commission setting out the stalls for and against.



Good to know.

By the way, does your signature breach the posting guidelines?


----------



## becky

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Purple said:


> Why on earth did you think that?


 
I've heard this too and was wondering where this came from myself.  The same people don't seem to think co-loacted hospitals are the same thing though..it seems to be stcking in people heads as not a good thing.

A lot of people seem to be very wary/anti this treaty but when you ask them they don't seem to know why except they heard it ....somewhere.


----------



## S.L.F

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



becky said:


> A lot of people seem to be very wary/anti this treaty but when you ask them they don't seem to know why except they heard it ....somewhere.



I reckon the same about people who are in favour of it.


----------



## ACA

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Mr ACA gave me his copy and asked me to explain it to him......took a quiet 1/2 hour and read the booklet from front to middle - the English bit - might as well have read the Gaelic! Haven't got a clue what the whole things about!!

I thought that the whole point of the booklet was to explain the treaty......even more confused now

How is anyone supposed to make an informed decision if everything is in double-speak? Anyone care to give me an idiots guide to the Lisbon Treaty??


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



ACA said:


> Anyone care to give me an idiots guide to the Lisbon Treaty??


Lisbon, in 50 words:

Lisbon creates an EU entity (State), with a President and Foreign  Minister, of which you will become a citizen.  EU law will supersede Irish law.  Commissioners will be selected  on a rotational basis. Voting strengths will be  adjusted to reflect population size.  Ireland will forgo it's veto in many  policy areas.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



michaelm said:


> Lisbon creates an EU entity (State), with a President and Foreign  Minister, of which you will become a citizen.


Rubbish



michaelm said:


> EU law will supersede Irish law.


 In some aspects only but this is the case at the moment so no real change there.



michaelm said:


> Commissioners will be selected  on a rotational basis. Voting strengths will be  adjusted to reflect population size.  Ireland will forgo it's veto in many  policy areas


 Correct but when you are less than 1% of the whole you can only expect so much.
The EU will become more democratic and more democratically accountable but we will have less elbowroom since there are more people at the table.


----------



## ACA

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Thanx michaelm....think thats decided me so!


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Purple said:


> Rubbish


Wow, Purple.  I view you as one of the best, straight talking, contributors to AAM but it's a hard fact that Lisbon creates an EU entity (State), with a President and Foreign  Minister, of which you will become a citizen.  That could be an argument for a Yes or a No, but it's a fact that I don't think you can just rubbish.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



michaelm said:


> Wow, Purple.  I view you as one of the best, straight talking, contributors to AAM but it's a hard fact that Lisbon creates an EU entity (State), with a President and Foreign  Minister, of which you will become a citizen.  That could be an argument for a Yes or a No, but it's a fact that I don't think you can just rubbish.


Ok, apologies; I did not mean to offence. The EU is and will continue to be an entity but it will not supersede national sovereignty. The President is not an executive president and the foreign minister will not set policy. We are all, as things now stand, citizens of the EU since we have a common market and a common travel area. Lisbon does not change this is any meaningful way. Without offering this context your comments are very misleading. 
Just to be clear I am in favour of a federal EU with an elected executive president, an EU army etc, much like the American model. Therefore I am not disagreeing with you because I don’t like what you are saying, I am disagreeing with you because what you are saying is not the case.


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Purple said:


> I did not mean to offend.


I was surprised, not offended.  I agree my brief treaty summary was simplistic but that's what was sought; certainly my post was not designed to mislead.  Being technical, I usually like to avoid that, the EU is not currently an entity in it own right but will be post-Lisbon; we can agree, I think, that the President and Foreign Minister will be selected, not directly elected, and that although they may not explicitly have the power to set policy under Lisbon they will be powerful figures who will represent the new EU on the world stage.  Just to be clear I am not in favour of a federal EU with an elected executive president, an EU army.  I favour an EU that's about fair trade and ease of travel where national governments elected by their people can pass or repeal laws without interference from the EU.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



michaelm said:


> the EU is not currently an entity in it own right but will be post-Lisbon; we can agree, I think, that the President and Foreign Minister will be selected, not directly elected, and that although they may not explicitly have the power to set policy under Lisbon they will be powerful figures who will represent the new EU on the world stage.


 The President will be selected by elected representatives, just as our Taoiseach is appointed and not elected, and will have very little real power.


----------



## Nedtastic

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Big NO. Just one step closer to the United States of Europe.


----------



## redstar

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Big YES. Just one step closer to the United States of Europe.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



redstar said:


> Big YES. Just one step closer to the United States of Europe.


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Nedtastic said:


> Big NO. Just one step closer to the United States of Europe.





redstar said:


> Big YES. Just one step closer to the United States of Europe.


Great, we've managed to distill the treaty and have Yes and No people agree that it's a 'step closer to the United States of Europe'.


----------



## redstar

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



michaelm said:


> Great, we've managed to distill the treaty and have Yes and No people agree that it's a 'step closer to the United States of Europe'.



... and without spending any money on expensive YES or NO ad campaigns, debates, documents etc ....  AAM clarifies the issues once again


----------



## GeneralZod

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

In the last 100 years, two World Wars started by Europeans (and finished by the good old USofA) and numerous instances of genocide, ethnic and religious cleansing. 23 official EU languages and the euro not adopted everywhere yet. National stereotypes alive and well.

Some way to go yet before we're all homogenous euro-trash that will be pledging allegiance to the flag of Europe while still in school.


----------



## Complainer

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Purple said:


> I look at the motley collection of wacko’s, from the socialist workers party to the extremist wings of Sinn Fein, who oppose the treaty and I find that I must vote for it.



It is interesting to note that you've got over your oft-quoted reservations around the social partnership and you are ready to support article
136a which makes legal provision for social dialogue and for recognition of the social partners.


----------



## ajapale

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

This article from indymedia makes very interesting reading.

Libertas: US Military Contractors against the EU


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Complainer said:


> It is interesting to note that you've got over your oft-quoted reservations around the social partnership and you are ready to support article
> 136a which makes legal provision for social dialogue and for recognition of the social partners.



Nothing is perfect.
Are you voting yes or no?


----------



## Complainer

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Purple said:


> Are you voting yes or no?


Leaning towards a 'yes', but uncertain as yet.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



ajapale said:


> This article from indymedia makes very interesting reading.
> 
> Libertas: US Military Contractors against the EU



That makes very interesting and disturbing reading.


----------



## redstar

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

From http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87311...


> What's particularly interesting about this is that McEvaddy is the CEO of Omega Air, a US defence contractor (they supply cargo planes and inflight refuelling services to the US military).
> 
> Declan Ganley, president of Libertas, also happens to be president of Rivada Networks, a US defence contractor (they supply emergency communications networks to the US intelligence community).



Strange how Sinn Fein, the Socialist Workers Party and these guys are allies on the No side !!


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Purple said:


> That makes very interesting and disturbing reading.


Indeed. Remember we're voting on the Lisbon Treaty (hopefully on the basis of Irish self-interest and not on the basis of any perceived gratitude due to Europe); Not on whether Libertas are in league with the US military or the NO camp might be linked to Nazi's or any other demonising propaganda the Yes 'muck spreader' will, for sure, continue to throw out over the next two weeks.  The proponents of a Yes are getting tetchy and  impatient as, despite their big push for a Yes over the last to weeks, they've lost ground; ultimately they may rue their 'trust us, we know what good for you - or else' strategy.


----------



## redstar

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Well I don't want to annoy Brian Cowen - I'm afraid of him


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



michaelm said:


> Indeed. Remember we're voting on the Lisbon Treaty (hopefully on the basis of Irish self-interest and not on the basis of any perceived gratitude due to Europe).


 
Absolutely agree. 

There is no way that FF, FG, Labour, PDs, (Greens?) viz. the whole political establishment are urging a *Yes* for any reason other than Irish self interest. 

The looneys have motives peculiar to themselves for *always* saying No and it appears that Libertas has motives for a No very much in *its* self interest.

This is not to say that _prima facie_ a Yes vote does not diminish Irish influence, of course it does. But the political establishment knows that a No vote will certainly have repurcussions for the very generous concessions to Ireland, like corpo tax. They daren't actually say this, but what else does Bertie mean when he says that No would be a disaster?

People who vote No (for Irish self interest) are gambling that we can gum up the whole European political consensus (elite rather than popular, for sure) and sail on merrily as before. It is a gamble which our own political professionals are telling us, the voters, is reckless in the extreme.


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Harchibald said:


> This is not to say that _prima facie_ a Yes vote does not diminish Irish influence, of course it does . . They daren't actually say this . .


Such candor is welcome but sadly lacking on the Yes side in general.  The politicians are not being upfront with the people as to do so may well lead to a defeat for the treaty.  This is not good enough.





Harchibald said:


> People who vote No (for Irish self interest) are gambling that we can gum up the whole European political consensus (elite rather than popular, for sure) and sail on merrily as before. It is a gamble which our own political professionals are telling us, the voters, is reckless in the extreme.


If Lisbon is defeated the EU will continue as is, as per Nice and previous treaties.  You know as well as I that the EU political elite are pushing their project through across Europe without popular support; this project would be rejected by many countries if the people weren't denied a say.  How can democrats stand over this con?


----------



## ubiquitous

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



ajapale said:


> This article from indymedia makes very interesting reading.
> 
> Libertas: US Military Contractors against the EU



Given their record, I would be very reluctant to believe anything I read on indymedia, at least unless and until I read it in a more credible media source.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



michaelm said:


> You know as well as I that the EU political elite are pushing their project through across Europe without popular support; this project would be rejected by many countries if the people weren't denied a say. How can democrats stand over this con?


This debate is getting a bit repetitive. There is no doubt whatsoever that this Treaty would not pass 27 referenda, indeed it mightn't pass any of them.

There is no doubt that the Political Elite know this and hence are ducking referenda wherever possible. However, I do not subscribe to the populist view that the PE are a faceless self serving inner circle - this is not the Soviet Union. The complex but largely administrative workings of the LT are precisely what we should trust our democratically elected PE to sort out for themselves.

Am I a democrat? Yes if you mean parliamentary style politicians elected by universal adult suffrage with mandates to govern for periods of 4 or 5 years, without further recourse to the "people". No if you mean we should all have an internet voting button to decide by majority vote or indeed 27 majority votes on every political decision.


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Harchibald said:


> Am I a democrat? Yes if you mean parliamentary style politicians elected by universal adult suffrage with mandates to govern for periods of 4 or 5 years, without further recourse to the "people".


Anything else would be impractical however a mandate to govern is non-transferable; It is not acceptable to pass decision making to a 3rd party, or at least not without specific sanction from the people.


----------



## noname

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

can someone confirm/correct for me, 

....If Lisbon is passed, Irelands voice will be diluted. that instead of being one member one vote (as I understand it is now), the "fairer" Europe would be bassed on % of EU population. So Ireland would have 0.8 of a say on European Matters & that Germany France, UK, & Spain (combined) would have over 50% of a say?

I could very well be wrong (that's why I'm asking) if I am right I am voting NO, it might be Fairer for Europe, but I want what's best for Ireland, I don't want Poland, Romania, Slovakia (to name just 3) to have a louder voice than ours.

stats taken from- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_Union


----------



## ajapale

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



ubiquitous said:


> Given their record, I would be very reluctant to believe anything I read on indymedia, at least unless and until I read it in a more credible media source.



I give indymedia just about the same credibility as most the stuff I read here on Letting Off Steam !

This is what indymedia has to say about Libertas and people associated with it.



> What's particularly interesting about this is that Ulick McEvaddy is the CEO of Omega Air, a US defence contractor (they supply cargo planes and inflight refuelling services to the US military).
> 
> Declan Ganley, president of Libertas, also happens to be president of Rivada Networks, a US defence contractor (they supply emergency communications networks to the US intelligence community).


----------



## redstar

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



ajapale said:


> I give indymedia just about the same credibility as most the stuff I read here on Letting Off Steam !
> 
> This is what indymedia has to say about Libertas and people associated with it.



Whether or not indymedia are credible, their description of the occupations of the two Libertas-associated guys is easily checked - its either right or wrong ?


----------



## Megan

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



bond-007 said:


> Also by abstaining you are indirectly voting yes.



What about all the 3rd level students who are off on their J1 Visas around the 9th June ( I know 20 students who fly out that date) and won't get to vote. Will they be counted as having abstaining? Couldn't the date have being set a little earlier so that young people get a chance to use their vote.


----------



## ubiquitous

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



ajapale said:


> I give indymedia just about the same credibility as most the stuff I read here on Letting Off Steam !
> 
> This is what indymedia has to say about Libertas and people associated with it.
> 
> _What's particularly interesting about this is that Ulick McEvaddy is the CEO of Omega Air, a US defence contractor (they supply cargo planes and inflight refuelling services to the US military).
> 
> Declan Ganley, president of Libertas, also happens to be president of Rivada Networks, a US defence contractor (they supply emergency communications networks to the US intelligence community)._



...and Bill Gates is the founder of Microsoft who presumably supply software products to the US military.

...and Neville Isdell is the chief executive officer of The Coca-Cola Company who presumably supply refreshment drinks to the US military. 

...and....

...and...

...and...

To be frank, I really wonder at this sort of conspiracy theory smear that indymedia and their likes seem to specialise in. 

One   day  they  tell us that the guys who support the EU and the Lisbon Treaty cannot be trusted as they have a vested interest in maintaining a military empire. 

The next day they tell us that the guys who oppose the EU and the Lisbon Treaty cannot be trusted as they have a vested interest in maintaining a military empire.


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



redstar said:


> . . the occupations of the two Libertas-associated guys is easily checked - its either right or wrong ?


Yes, right or wrong, and irrelevant.





Megan said:


> What about all the 3rd level students who are off on their J1 Visas around the 9th June ( I know 20 students who fly out that date) and won't get to vote. Will they be counted as having abstaining? Couldn't the date have being set a little earlier so that young people get a chance to use their vote.


Those who would be absent on the day had the option for a postal vote however there was only short notice given ahead of the deadline (which has now passed) for registering.


----------



## redstar

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



michaelm said:


> Yes, right or wrong, and irrelevant.



How do you know it is irrelevant ? 

I think its important to understand what has motivated two very senior corporate officials to lead one of the main NO campaign groups, especially when all the main business groups support the Lisbon Treaty.

What is their 'vested interest' in opposing the treaty ?


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

The NO camp are an eclectic mix or disparate groups with little in common except their opposition to this treaty.  Some people will be distracted by demonising propaganda aimed at the NO side.  What's relevant is what's in the treaty and how that impacts Ireland's interests and Irish citizens.


----------



## diarmuidc

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



michaelm said:


> The NO camp are an eclectic mix or disparate groups with little in common except their opposition to this treaty.



Eclectic? I can think of a few more choice words. Here are the groups that are supporting the NO campagin 
Sinn Fein 
Socalists Workers Party 
[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]
Libertas

Some of the claims from the NO side have gone beyond misleading to pure lying (tax harmonisation, abortion, gay marriage etc). I can't believe some people are falling for it.


----------



## television

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

i am not left wing hippy or religious nut and i am voting no. there are good reasons for voting no. creeping privitisation of public services for one.


----------



## GeneralZod

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

How will voting no to Lisbon make privatisation of public services any less likely?

According to this Referendum Commission page the EU already has competence under existing unreformed treaties in the areas most relevant to achieving creeping privatisation if that is the objective of EU governments.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



television said:


> i am not left wing hippy or religious nut and i am voting no. there are good reasons for voting no. creeping privitisation of public services for one.




Do you really think that socialist Europe will push for privatisation of public services? (Hint; the axis of the EU runs between France and Germany and they are two of the most socialised countries in the world when it comes to public services).


----------



## Ceist Beag

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

Most of the No camp arguments are based on adversarial scenarios where they say our weight will be diminshed if this treaty is passed but surely anyone in partnership knows that any agreement will be unsuccessful unless all parties are satisfied with the agreement so why portray scenarios where little old Ireland will be bullied if we pass this treaty? It's all just scaremongering as far as I'm concerned - we've been in the EU long enough now to see that it has worked well for us and we haven't exactly been bullied around by our fellow partners!


----------



## ubiquitous

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



television said:


> . there are good reasons for voting no. creeping privitisation of public services for one.



If this is true, I would regard it as a very good reason to vote yes. I'm sure that train users to/from the Munster region would agree.

I haven't decided yet how to vote, although my natural instincts are to vote Yes. Still when I hear Micheal Martin on the RTE news "promising" that the EU is happy to commit economic suicide to "combat climate change", I wonder am I mad to vote Yes.


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



diarmuidc said:


> Some of the claims from the NO side have gone beyond misleading to pure lying (tax harmonisation, abortion, gay marriage etc). I can't believe some people are falling for it.


Yeah, those crazy naysayers, like before Nice they were making wild claims about, amongst other things, a flood of immigrants and the flight of manufacturing jobs.





television said:


> i am not left wing hippy or religious nut and i am voting no.


Ditto.  I'm voting no despite my dislike for many on the NO side.  I'm focusing on the treaty.  To vote yes because of who's calling for a No is blinkered.





Ceist Beag said:


> . . they say our weight will be diminshed if this treaty is passed . .


Well, that's an indisputable fact.  There is no good reason to hand over so many more policy areas to Brussels to be subject to QMV, and no good reason to dilute or current voting strength.  And if the Yes camp think that the 'Charter of Fundamental Rights' is such a prize then there's no good reason why they can't, following a No to Lisbon, put it into Irish law where it can be interpreted by the Irish courts rather than the EU court.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



michaelm said:


> Yeah, those crazy naysayers, like before Nice they were making wild claims about, amongst other things, a flood of immigrants and the flight of manufacturing jobs.


 Exactly. There was a big increase in migrant workers. This was a massively positive thing from a social and economic perspective. There was no flood of immigrants. 
The other red herring was that Nice (or any other EU treaty) would lead to a flight of manufacturing jobs. There is absolutely no link between the two.


----------



## Ceist Beag

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



michaelm said:


> no good reason to dilute or current voting strength


What are you so afraid of michaelm? The No side harp on about losing our commissioner - what they forget to mention is that EVERY SINGLE country is losing a their commissioner for 5 out of every 15 years, not just us - so Germany, France and so on are going to have the exact same as us. As I said, Europe has been good for us since we joined - what evidence have you to suggest that suddenly it will be to our detriment? Why this paranoia that countries will gang up on little old Ireland - and also what evidence have you to suggest that our (already very small) current voting strength could do anything to prevent such a paranoid scenario in the current system if it were to happen? I find it amusing this fear people have that Lisbon is a treaty to get Ireland!!


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Ceist Beag said:


> What are you so afraid of michaelm? The No side harp on about losing our commissioner - what they forget to mention is that EVERY SINGLE country is losing a their commissioner for 5 out of every 15 years, not just us - so Germany, France and so on are going to have the exact same as us. As I said, Europe has been good for us since we joined - what evidence have you to suggest that suddenly it will be to our detriment? Why this paranoia that countries will gang up on little old Ireland - and also what evidence have you to suggest that our (already very small) current voting strength could do anything to prevent such a paranoid scenario in the current system if it were to happen? I find it amusing this fear people have that Lisbon is a treaty to get Ireland!!


 Well said.
It's also worth noting that if some apocryphal scenario did come to pass and they did gang up on us then we could leave. Every country has the right to up-sticks and head home from Brussels.


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Ceist Beag said:


> . .not just us - so Germany, France and so on are going to have the exact same as us . . I find it amusing this fear people have that Lisbon is a treaty to get Ireland!!


Look, Germany and France are EU Goliaths, a Commissioner is of much more importance to small states than to large.  While loosing our permanent Commissioner, Ireland is halving it's voting strength to 0.8% but Germany more than doubles it's to 17%.  Ireland's relative voting strength to Germany's changes from, currently under Nice, around 1/4 to 1/20 under Lisbon.  To say it will be exactly the same for Germany and France is at best simplistic in the extreme.  Laugh, if you will, at those with concerns about Lisbon but make no mistake that Lisbon is a framework for a federal Europe; if that's what the people want the so be it . . I'll be giving it a big NO thanks, the EU has enough power already and will tick away fine under Nice and previous treaties.


----------



## Ceist Beag

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

michaelm, the EU would not work without the smaller states - why do you think it has been expanded over the years. So why the perception that Germany/France/UK would just dictate policy to all these smaller states and that we would all willingly go along with it? If that were the case we could all just walk away and if that was all the likes of Germany wanted surely they could just form their own union with the larger states, why bother with us? Maybe I am simplistic in my arguments but I fail to see any basis for the fear running throughout the No campaign.


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Ceist Beag said:


> . .I fail to see any basis for the fear running throughout the No campaign.


Fear doesn't come into it.  It simply a bad deal for Ireland.  It should be accepted or rejected on it's merits.  It's not a referendum on EU membership.  The EU won't fall apart without Lisbon.


----------



## GeneralZod

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Ceist Beag said:


> The No side harp on about losing our commissioner - what they forget to mention is that EVERY SINGLE country is losing a their commissioner for 5 out of every 15 years, not just us - so Germany, France and so on are going to have the exact same as us.



It's also worth noting that under Lisbon the EU Parliament gains extra powers of co-decision with the Council on legislation proposed by the Commission.

The  nature of the new structure of the commission after 2014 means there'll be additional focus and pressure on all commissioners to do their job and act in the interest of the EU as a whole.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



GeneralZod said:


> It's also worth noting that under Lisbon the EU Parliament gains extra powers of co-decision with the Council on legislation proposed by the Commission.


 Good point. Lisbon will make the EU more democratic, not less.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

_MickyM_, I think the fact that we are the *only* referendum moves the goalposts. 

If there were many referenda we could maybe indulge in the objective assessment you promulgate, might even vote No myself. But there can be no doubt that if the failure to implement what the PE see as highly desirable, is down to lil' ol' Ireland's self indulgence there *will be* repercussions. 

Bertie says No is a disaster, he for one doesn't believe for one instant that everything will stay the same for Ireland if it alone stands in the way of what the PE see as common sense. Sorry Micky but I respect Bertie's judgement on this one more than yours. Your simplistic argument that this is a vote between the status quo and the LB is obviously not shared by those in the know.

And when British fascists commend us on our referendum and urge us to vote No then I immediately see a double win for them, their isolationist rejection of everything European sweetened by the schadenfreude of seeing Ireland firmly as the villain of the piece.


----------



## michaelm

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*



Harchibald said:


> Your simplistic argument that this is a vote between the status quo and the LB is obviously not shared by those in the know.


It may be shared but not professed.  Bertie is irrelevant.  Brian says he didn't read it but negotiated 95% of it, of course he was actually involved in negotiating the EU Constitution not Lisbon, so given that Lisbon is 95% of the Constitution I suppose Brian's half right.  Anyway, roll on June 12th and we'll see what the people say to 'those in the know'.


----------



## ubiquitous

*Re: Lisbon yes or no?*

See yesterday's Independent for a very objective article from Brendan Keenan about the business implications of the Treaty.

http://www.independent.ie/business/...th-eu-government-of-laws-not-men-1390642.html


----------



## sansolde

Yesterday I saw a poster which read 'Dont let Brussels in your back door!' 
Have we come so far that we now bite the hand which fed us in need?


----------



## ajapale

I found the "Dummies Guide" to Lisbon in the June edition of the Village magazine very useful


----------



## starlite68

i think a no vote would gain us a lot respect from the countries not fortunate enough to have a vote.


----------



## Caveat

Anyone have any further recommendations for a website or any other resource featuring reasoned YES/NO arguments?

And shouldn't the government have provided some sort of explanatory leaflet along these lines by now?


----------



## Purple

Caveat said:


> And shouldn't the government have provided some sort of explanatory leaflet along these lines by now?


The referendum commission has done so.


----------



## Purple

starlite68 said:


> i think a no vote would gain us a lot respect from the countries not fortunate enough to have a vote.


All countries have a vote. They elect their government and that government makes the decision. That's how representative democracy works. Referenda are not a suitable mechanism for deciding such complex matters. This is evident in how elements of the No side have presented utterly spurious reasons for voting against the treaty.


----------



## Caveat

Purple said:


> The referendum commission has done so.


 
Didn't get this - did everyone else get one?

Are we talking about the same thing here - a breakdown or bullet point type synopsis of both the YES and NO campaigns?


----------



## Seagull

I think a large number of people are going to wind up voting no just because they don't understand the impact of Lisbon, and don't want to vote for something they don't feel comfortable with. There should have been far more information given out as to what it's about, and what the effects are. A few TV debates including people from both sides would have helped. Pamphlets saying "Vote yes because we think you should, and the EU has been good for us in the past" are annoying in that they give absolutely no information, and do nothing to persuade me. The yes campaign should have made a bigger effort to ensure people were informed.


----------



## Purple

Caveat said:


> Didn't get this - did everyone else get one?
> 
> Are we talking about the same thing here - a breakdown or bullet point type synopsis of both the YES and NO campaigns?



They sent out a booklet. 
The treaty is just too complicated to summarise in bullet points. That's why a referendum is not the appropriate mechanism to use to accept or reject it.


----------



## Caveat

Purple said:


> The treaty is just too complicated to summarise in bullet points


 
I meant a summary of the yes/no arguments more than of the treaty itself. Yes, I received the 'booklet'. I'm not going to read it. Those more informed and EU savvy than me have read it and still don't understand it so I'm certainly not going to waste my time on it. 

I agree with your point re the referendum itself being an inappropriate mechanism and I agree also with Seagull's post.


----------



## rmelly

Caveat said:


> I agree with your point re the referendum itself being an inappropriate mechanism and I agree also with Seagull's post.


 


> That's why a referendum is not the appropriate mechanism to use to accept or reject it.


 
Sounds like we should vote No and wait for the governments Plan B then?


----------



## GeneralZod

Lisbon can't be summarised as a single easy to understand measure.

It does many things, which are listed in the pamphlets and on the many websites devoted to it.

Voting no on the basis of not being given a simple answer when one doesn't exist is unreasonable. Anyone intending to vote has the civic duty to inform themselves about the issues using the extensive material available and make a decision based on the issues. They shouldn't let spurious points influence their decision.


----------



## rmelly

Equally they shouldn't vote 'Yes' because they think the politicians know best etc.


----------



## starlite68

Purple said:


> All countries have a vote. They elect their government and that government makes the decision. That's how representative democracy works. Referenda are not a suitable mechanism for deciding such complex matters. This is evident in how elements of the No side have presented utterly spurious reasons for voting against the treaty.


if the reasons are so utterly spurious ....then why is the no vote pulling ahead in the latest poll......obviously everyone dose not share your view!


----------



## Purple

starlite68 said:


> if the reasons are so utterly spurious ....then why is the no vote pulling ahead in the latest poll......obviously everyone dose not share your view!


 There are plenty of reasons to vote no but many of those presented by some in the the no camp have nothing to do with Lisbon.


----------



## rmelly

Sounds like you're coming around to voting no, Purple? Good on you.


----------



## Madangan

One of the problems the Yes camp have can be illustrated by looking at someone like me.

I am pro Europe generally speaking and I have no doubt that on balance Irelands membership of The EEC then EC  now EU has been extremely extremely positive for the country as a whole our economy our social policies  and all of us as Irish people.

 I am a stereotypically middle class person university graduate professional with a decent income and a good life. I have no axe to grind. I am a centrist politically speaking,have voted Labour,FG, Green and on rare occasions FF.

The vast majority of those advocating a yes vote would have my respect if not necessarily my vote or absolute agreement. By contrast I think that the vast majority of those advocating a no vote are lunatics. I would cross the strret to avoid most of them,I intensely dislike Sinn Fein, most of Coir are mad or fanatics and as for the marxists the anarchists etc... they are just a waste of space.

I care not a whit whether we remain neutral and believe that neutrality is something to be decided upon on a case by case basis.

I believe that most of those on the No side have run disgraceful untruthful fear  based campaigns.

So it should not take much to push someone like me over to the Yes side. 

And yet, I have yet to hear any convincing reason for changing Bunreacht na hEireann to incorporate the Lisbon treaty. There may be many but I have not heard them. 

I have heard ad nauseum that we , a little country on the edge of Europe, will lose our influence, that we punch above our weight but wont in future if we say no, that the rest will push on without us...the sky will fall in etc..  And yet France and the Netherlands did not suffer. 

And either it is a Union where all countries are equal and have equal respect or else it is not. If it is they must respect our decision the way that Frances No vote was respected, if it is not then why oh why should we vote to make  the Eu run more efficiently if this only increases its domination over us.

I am told to vote Yes  and reassured that we will not lose power, not lose our independence on tax matters etc.. by people who  proudly admit not to have read  the Treaty! I am a solicitor and I can only imagine what a client of mine would say if I told him that the 100 page commercial lease he asked me to review  was fine and he should sign it while laughingly admitting that I only read to page 75 cos it was too long.

If the Eu wants to be more efficient(and Im not sure that I want it to get more efficient given the volume and extent of legislation (by way of decisions directives regulations etc..) that it spews out each year) then it can first stop the ridiculous bilocation of the parliament between Brussels and strasbourg each month which costs millions each time and then it can move on to being totally transparent in its workings and its costs and expenditure which it refuses to do.  

Then if EU  want us to exercise our democratic vote  it shoud release  the Commision report on taxation which it is holding back until after our vote.

And in the interim can someone on the YES side please explain to me why Giscard D,Estaing, who was intrinsically involved in the EU constitution  project, appears to believe that Lisbon is the Constitution in disguise and that we (and the French and the Dutch and the people of all other countries who looked like rejecting the Constitution such as the UK) will be fooled into ratifying the Constitution  by the back door???

I voted Yes to the S.E.A Maastricht etc.. I want to be convinced to vote Yes again but as things stand I am veering towards No and at best towards abstaining.


----------



## Caveat

Pretty much where I am Madangan.


----------



## GeneralZod

Madangan said:


> One of the problems the Yes camp have can be illustrated by looking at someone like me.



Good post.

If you seriously believe that the EU is "dominating" us then you should be opposed to our continued EU membership in general. The question I'd ask is how does the Lisbon treaty extend this domination or does it actually make it less likely with it's measures increasing the powers of the EU parliament over legislation and the EU budget.

The "have you read every page of it" argument is misleading. The fairer question to ask the politicians advocating a yes vote is have they read the consolidated text of the EU treaties after they've been modified by Lisbon. If they read the whole Lisbon treaty they'd be far more likely to miss something than if they studied the consolidated text.

The moving of the EU Parliament between two locations is a waste of money  but it isn't a reason to vote no to Lisbon. It can be dealt with later if the political will exists to do so. I'm sure it will happen as the power of the French is diminished in the enlarged Europe.

This isn't the EU constitution in disguise. It is the EU constitution with obvious bits associated with nation state sovereignty taken off. The history of the negotiation of the treaty is too well known to deny its origins.

Perhaps the key question is do EU governments share the vision of Arch Europeans like the out of touch Giscard D,Estaing to create a US of Europe. I think the answer is no as national sovereignty remains intact under Lisbon.


----------



## michaelm

GeneralZod said:


> Perhaps the key question is do EU governments share the vision of Arch Europeans like the out of touch Giscard D,Estaing to create a US of Europe.


I think the answer is yes but that the peoples of Europe do not share the vision.  This is why all but Ireland are denying their people a say on the rehashed EU Constitution that is the Lisbon Treaty.  A NO should be viewed in that light and as a wake-up call to the Political Classes.  They should begin the process of handing back many competencies to National governments.

As FF, FG and Labour agree that the Charter of Fundamental Rights attached to the Lisbon Treaty is such a prize they should, following a NO to Lisbon, instead implement it under Irish law.  That way, rather than have the ECJ foist a legally binding, unforeseen and undesirable interpretation on us, we can have the Irish courts interpret it.  At least we would have the power to remedy any unforeseen and undesirable interpretation from an Irish court, this would not be possible in relation to a ECJ decision.


----------



## Ceist Beag

GeneralZod said:


> Good post.
> 
> If you seriously believe that the EU is "dominating" us then you should be opposed to our continued EU membership in general. ...
> 
> The "have you read every page of it" argument is misleading. ...



Completely agree. Madangan good post but seriously do you honestly expect everyone voting to read every page? I'm disappointed with the way the Yes campaign are putting forward their argument but I still believe myself that this is a good step forward - and no I haven't read the full document, nor have any intention of doing so!
My philosophy here is simple - first I read the consolidated points and was in favour based on that. Second I looked at all those in favour versus all those against and listened to their arguments just to see if I was missing something. I have heard nothing yet from the No camp to persuade me I have and also I have seen noone of authority in the no camp that I have any knowledge of or respect for. Anyone I would respect is in the Yes camp. So it's quite a no brainer for me.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Ceist Beag said:


> Anyone I would respect is in the Yes camp. So it's quite a no brainer for me.


Snap. The whole responsible political, economic and social consensus is for "Yes" or more accurately that "No" will turn out a disaster for Ireland.

And yet the betting markets and opinion polls are pointing to a real possibility of a popular "No". There will of course be the usual platitudes of "we must respect the voice of the people" from a defeated "Yes" camp. To me a "No" vote would mean quite the opposite, we must never again respect the voice of the people, referendum style, on anything so complex as this.


----------



## Bluebells

We are not voting "on the Lisbon Treaty". 
We are voting to allow or prevent an ammendment to our Constitution.

At present the EU cannot enforce legislation that is repugnant to our constitution. The Lisbon Treaty proposes that EU legislation  be superior to Irish Constitutional Law. If we want this, we vote 'Yes', if not, we vote 'No'. What the actual legislation will be does not matter, the point is that whether we like it or not we won't be able to do anything about it.

Talk of Vetoes and Triple Locks does not impress me. Our representatives will be afraid to use our Veto, in case they upset the rest of Europe, like they are afraid of doing now.

We have a Veto in the WTO talks, but it took the IFA  to threaten a No vote to make sure that the Veto would be used. How can we be sure that our Veto will be used in future?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Bluebells said:


> The Lisbon Treaty proposes that EU legislation be superior to Irish Constitutional Law.


 
I just knew there was a really good reason for voting for the Lisbon Treaty.


----------



## Bluebells

Whether the  Constitution is good bad or indifferent is irrelevant. The point is, that it is the _Irish_ Constitution. The Citizens of Ireland are the only ones who can change it's provisions if they feel they are outdated/unfair/discriminatory, and can do so at their leisure, and when the need arises.

Post Lisbon, the Irish people no longer have this right. Laws can be enacted and enforced which overide the Constitution. 

I have no gripe against the EU, however I don't really see why we have to effectively scrap our Constitution in order for it continue functioning.


----------



## GeneralZod

Bluebells said:


> Post Lisbon, the Irish people no longer have this right. Laws can be enacted and enforced which overide the Constitution.
> 
> I have no gripe against the EU, however I don't really see why we have to effectively scrap our Constitution in order for it continue functioning.



We are not scrapping the Irish Constitution. If we decide we no longer want to cooperate on agreed areas of common interest such as monetary policy we can hold another referendum dropping recognition of EU Law.


----------



## cole

Harchibald said:


> There will of course be the usual platitudes of "we must respect the voice of the people" from a defeated "Yes" camp.


 
Like they did with the Nice referendum?



Harchibald said:


> To me a "No" vote would mean quite the opposite, we must never again respect the voice of the people, referendum style, on anything so complex as this.


 
Why? Can the people not be trusted to make the right decision?


----------



## diarmuidc

Ceist Beag said:


> Completely agree. Madangan good post but seriously do you honestly expect everyone voting to read every page?


On a related point , I think the "have you read the treaty" argument against the treaty is a total red herring. 

In 1998 there was a referendum to amend the Irish constitution. This was passed with 94% YES. I wonder what percent read that amendment.  (I'm guessing it was tiny, and BTW it was the Good Friday Agreement) People may be against or for the Lisbon, but whether one has read it or not I bet has no relation on ones decision.

What I can't believe is that , with pretty much every major organisation, political party or union FOR the treaty, more people are saying that they will vote against it than for.  Scary.


----------



## starlite68

not really scary..its just that irish people dont like being told how we should vote,we are capable of making up our own minds.   if everyone told you to jump off a cliff would you still think it was good idea?


----------



## gnubbit

Very well put Mandangan.


----------



## television

> Lisbon can't be summarised as a single easy to understand measure.
> 
> It does many things, which are listed in the pamphlets and on the many websites devoted to it.
> 
> Voting no on the basis of not being given a simple answer when one doesn't exist is unreasonable. Anyone intending to vote has the civic duty to inform themselves about the issues using the extensive material available and make a decision based on the issues. They shouldn't let spurious points influence their decision.


 
Did a leaked document on how the government are going to promote a yes vote not suggest that the government plan was to not try to explain the details of the treaty but to just promote the benefits the EU to Ireland.  

i was listening to Mary harney today in a debate with Joe Higgins. When Higgins tried to discuss the details of the treaty i.e points on various articles Harney responded by saying Higgins was confusing people. 

The goverment does not want a full open frank debate of the merits of the treaty. And if there is a no vote the governments plan b will be another referendum in a year. 

It is a fact that European beauracrats do not believe ordinary people are capable of understanding the complexity of the european project. 

This is not about ordinary people informing themselves about the treaty.it is about the political establishment telling people without explaining that they should vote YES. Quite fairly and reasonably people are saying "if the goverment cannot explain this properly and if I cant understand it I am not voting yes" In my mind a resonable position to take.


----------



## television

There is huge business and corporate influence on this treaty. European policy on Education is mmoving increasingly towards privitisation and this treaty allows for further privitisation of Health also. Im not a socialist but further privitisation of these key public services will benifit the rich and further marginalise the poor accross europe. this is the reason i am viting no


----------



## Madangan

If you seriously believe that the EU is "dominating" us then you should be opposed to our continued EU membership in general. The question I'd ask is how does the Lisbon treaty extend this domination or does it actually make it less likely with it's measures increasing the powers of the EU parliament over legislation and the EU budget.

_If all EU member countries are equal then the "vote yes or we will be in trouble and the big boys wont invite us to the best parties" argument doesnt wash. If we are not equal then maybe that argument does wash but equally the term domination would also be correct. This doesnt mean we have to pull out altogether merely that we should not relinquish even more sovereignty than we already have under the original accession treaty ,maastricht, nice etc... _

The "have you read every page of it" argument is misleading. The fairer question to ask the politicians advocating a yes vote is have they read the consolidated text of the EU treaties after they've been modified by Lisbon. If they read the whole Lisbon treaty they'd be far more likely to miss something than if they studied the consolidated text.

_Agreed as to reading the consolidated text. However I take it as a given that any one reading the treaty would have all other treaties in front of them otherwise it would be akin to reading a Finance Act for 2007 which amended a multitude of other acts withou having those other acts before you. _

_Also I dont expect every Tom Dick and Harriet to read all of the above but seriously is it too much to ask that our Taoiseach and current EU commissioner(to name but two) would do so. Seriously I thought once Bertie had gone we might have a leader who showed us a modicum of respect!_

Perhaps the key question is do EU governments share the vision of Arch Europeans like the out of touch Giscard D,Estaing to create a US of Europe. I think the answer is no as national sovereignty remains intact under Lisbon.

_If I thought the answer to that was no then that would bring me a long long way towards the Yes camp. Its not just D,Estaing, Prodi was at it too a bit. _

_Having said all of that my 83 year old mother voted today in her nursing home and when I asked what she did she said " the two main parties were in favour and as Sinn Fein were against that decided it for me I voted YES" And she hasnt read anything other than the Indo and leaflets! _


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

cole said:


> Why? Can the people not be trusted to make the right decision?


 
No, that is exactly my point. And even if we scrape a Yes we will have been dealt a salutary lesson on "referendum roulette". The other 26 countries see this clearly and avoided referenda but somehow we must always have Dev spinning the barrel at our heads.

The problem with the Yes campaign is that they dare not spell out their real case. For the real case is that _"No will be a disaster"_ and to spell that out could be self fulfilling if there actually was a No. That's what Bertie said and a guy who can back horses like he can has to be respected. But seriously, there must at least be a fear that is a correct interpretation. The RC booklet simply states that No means we continue as is, that is a very optimistic and therefore misleading assessment. 

Ireland has risen from being the poorest nation in the EU when we joined in 1973 to being the richest today. This is on the back of a "most favoured nation status" which politicians like Charles Haughey skilfully nurtured. No is in danger of condemning us to "least favoured nation status" at least with the political elite and it is they who count. Not much help to Ireland being the toast of of the British Nationalist Party.


----------



## cole

I must say that I'm quite shocked that you believe the best way forward is to ignore the people and trust in their elected representatives.

I agree that the other 26 countries have chosen not to allow their people a free vote as they are afraid of an overwhelming NO. What does this say about them? 

Why will a No vote be a disaster? I don't believe that the rest of Europe will plough ahead and leave us behind politically or economically.


----------



## diarmuidc

starlite68 said:


> not really scary..its just that irish people dont like being told how we should vote,we are capable of making up our own minds.   if everyone told you to jump off a cliff would you still think it was good idea?


If ten doctors told you that you need to treat the mole on your arm, would you refuse to do so "because you don't like being told what to do"? Let's face it , the treaty is a legal document. Most people don't have the knowledge or expertise to understand the implications of such a legal document and have to rely on someone with expertise in the field to advise them. When they  then advise you and you then refuse to listen to them, that doesn't sound like very rational behaviour..


----------



## starlite68

someone with expertise to advise them" by that do you mean our self serving government politicians who have openly admitted that they have not read fully themselvs!!  thanks but i think i will make my own mind up.


----------



## Nemesis

cole said:


> I must say that I'm quite shocked that you believe the best way forward is to ignore the people and trust in their elected representatives.



Are you shocked by the idea of representative democracy in general? Think we should have direct democracy and referenda about each and every matter that requires legislation? Just what is so outrageous about trusting our elected representatives? After all we elect them (well those that bother to exercise that right). This is particularly so when all the major parties are agreed. If the Lisbon Treaty really was such a bad deal, then why aren't Fine Gael and Labour taking advantage of this to give the government a bloody nose? Instead Sinn Fein are getting all the exposure and attention and will no doubt claim credit for a No vote seeing as they're the only party in the Dail against it. Libertas are getting absolutely loads of attention out of this of course but since they're not a political party and haven't been elected by anyone, it's really only Sinn Fein who might gain electorally from all this.



cole said:


> I agree that the other 26 countries have chosen not to allow their people a free vote as they are afraid of an overwhelming NO. What does this say about them?



The other 26 countries have chosen to ratify the treaty according to their own respective constitutional traditions. (As already pointed out, Germany couldn't hold a referendum on the issue even if they wanted to) The other 26 countries are all democracies, their governments have been elected by the people. They are not acting in violation of their own constitutional arrangements. The way some No campaigners go on, you'd swear the half of them were dictatorships oppressing their people and seeking to impose the same treatment on us. If the people are so concerned about the direction the EU is taking, let them organise politically and stand for election. The problem with that of course is that it demands one develop a coherent ideology and set of policies across a whole range of issues. Referenda allow single issue and fringe groups to hijack the process, gain far more media attention than is justified by their numbers and use it to distort the arguments and spread confusion. In fairness, at least Sinn Fein have stood before the Irish people and had members elected to the Dail. I disagree fundamentally with them on almost every issue but I have no problem with them receiving the attention they do in this debate. I am however baffled as to why Ganley and Libertas and the other myriad small groups receive so much airtime.



cole said:


> Why will a No vote be a disaster? I don't believe that the rest of Europe will plough ahead and leave us behind politically or economically.



We don't know what the long term consequences of a No vote will be. It will certainly cause a major headache for our government in the short term. Personally, I'd prefer if their full attention was on managing this economy through difficult and uncertain times rather than trying to sort out the mess that will ensue from the unraveling of this process.


----------



## diarmuidc

starlite68 said:


> someone with expertise to advise them" by that do you mean our self serving government politicians who have openly admitted that they have not read fully themselvs!!  thanks but i think i will make my own mind up.



No I mean:


[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]
IFA
ICMSA
[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]
and  Fianna Fail
 and plenty more, but I'm sure you know better


----------



## DavyJones

I'm still undecided, I go from a yes to a no every few days then back again. Have the other 26 countries had poles to get a feel from the people and if so, what was the general opinion? I have read this thread with great interest and notice a lot of posters that I have come to respect are in either camps.
It's a bit mad that 4 million of us have a say now over 500 million!


----------



## S.L.F

cole said:


> Why? Can the people not be trusted to make the right decision?





Harchibald said:


> No.



Harchibald,
it was the people of this country who voted in the goverment, who are trying to get us to vote for this.

If you are saying we can't be trusted to vote properly then in that case we voted for the wrong govt in. You can't have it both ways


----------



## room305

television said:


> There is huge business and corporate influence on this treaty. European policy on Education is mmoving increasingly towards *privitisation* and this treaty allows for further *privitisation* of Health also. Im not a socialist but further *privitisation* of these key public services will benifit the rich and further marginalise the poor accross europe. this is the reason i am viting no


 
So hedge schools are making a come back?


----------



## Nemesis

DavyJones said:


> I'm still undecided, I go from a yes to a no every few days then back again. Have the other 26 countries had poles to get a feel from the people and if so, what was the general opinion? I have read this thread with great interest and notice a lot of posters that I have come to respect are in either camps.
> It's a bit mad that 4 million of us have a say now over 500 million!



I don't know but I really don't see how that would be relevant to our decision. The process is not decided by polls. It is decided by a parliamentary vote in those countries. We have to deal with whatever consequences follow from this, not the French or Italians or whoever else. It's all fine and dandy to talk about acting as a voice for other Europeans but it won't be other Europeans who have to deal with the fallout. It will be our government. I don't see how a No vote makes any sense. We are essentially undermining our government on the European stage. This is all the more so considering it was under the Irish presidency that most of the proposed changes were negotiated and agreed. People will no doubt say I'm scaremongering, but I am genuinely very concerned with where this is going. We are a small country, it strikes me as naive in the extreme to think that we can hold up the process completely without a negative impact on our influence and standing. I agree with the argument that our influence rests mainly on the goodwill and respect that we have gained during our years within the EU rather than the particular number of votes we have in the Council or whether we have a Commissioner all the time (and on that point, I don't see how we can do better than having the same entitlement to appoint a Commissioner as every other state).


----------



## cole

Nemesis said:


> Are you shocked by the idea of representative democracy in general?


 
No.



Nemesis said:


> Think we should have direct democracy and referenda about each and every matter that requires legislation? Just what is so outrageous about trusting our elected representatives?


 
We have a referendum on this topic. What's outrageous is the suggestion that the _people_ can't be trusted to make the correct decision in this regard. Can someone please explain why the people can't be trusted?


----------



## starlite68

well put..cole!


----------



## television

> So hedge schools are making a come back?


 
Im not sure I understand your point. actually I am sure I dont understand your point.  I am in education and I can tell you the poor are at a severe disadvantage in education at every level. Privitisation or PPPs in education will make this suituation even worse


----------



## GeneralZod

television said:


> Privitisation or PPPs in education will make this suituation even worse



I have no firm view on the merits of privatising public services. Can you explain why you think it is bad? As far as I'm aware in parts of Canada the public are given credits to buy their health care from private operators. It appears to work for them. Doesn't a regulated private sector where competition exists benefit the consumer.


----------



## Nemesis

cole said:


> No.



Pleased to hear it, because a lot of No campaigners appear to place no value on parliamentary ratification at all. It's dismissed as dodgy political elites cooking up schemes in back rooms. That's a dangerous way to start thinking about our democratically elected representatives. Parliamentary democracy is far from perfect but it sure beats the hell out of the alternatives.



cole said:


> We have a referendum on this topic. What's outrageous is the suggestion that the _people_ can't be trusted to make the correct decision in this regard. Can someone please explain why the people can't be trusted?



Personally, I would not choose to express it in those terms. It's not that people can't be trusted. It's more that most people don't have the time to immerse themselves in the details of a complex Treaty like this. I mean for one thing, at best only about half of those entitled to vote on the issue will bother to turn up at all. Of those that do, many will not have devoted the time and attention required to understand it. That's borne out by the findings of the Irish Times poll. The reason most often cited for voting No was not understanding the Treaty or not knowing what they're voting for (30 per cent). If that holds true next Thursday then that's no way to decide on anything.


----------



## S.L.F

Nemesis said:


> It's not that people can't be trusted. It's more that most people don't have the time to immerse themselves in the details of a complex Treaty like this. I mean for one thing, at best only about half of those entitled to vote on the issue will bother to turn up at all. Of those that do, many will not have devoted the time and attention required to understand it. That's borne out by the findings of the Irish Times poll. The reason most often cited for voting No was not understanding the Treaty or not knowing what they're voting for (30 per cent). If that holds true next Thursday then that's no way to decide on anything.



And since our elected reps haven't read it either it's not really surprising that people are going to be voting no!


----------



## diarmuidc

S.L.F said:


> And since our elected reps haven't read it either it's not really surprising that people are going to be voting no!


Who exactly hasn't read it? 

And do you think all the organisations I referred to above have not read it also but are advising a YES for the fun of it?


----------



## extopia

We simply do not know who has read it. We know that Charlie McCreevy, Bertie Aherne and Brian Cowan have not read it.


----------



## television

> I have no firm view on the merits of privatising public services. Can you explain why you think it is bad? As far as I'm aware in parts of Canada the public are given credits to buy their health care from private operators. It appears to work for them. Doesn't a regulated private sector where competition exists benefit the consumer.


 
the aim of private business is to maximise profit as efficently and cost effectively as possible. I have nothing against that. Schools however are not businesses they are places where the community try to create caring informed citizens who want to make the world a better place and yes add to the economic good of the community. Idealistic I know but thats the beauty in working in education you try to give the kids you teach a sense that they can change the world. Privatise education and what your going to get is the languege of business "targets, competition, profit, strong survive weak fail". 

1. utlimatly schools run with a business agenda /ideology will promote subject choices that are seen as important to the knowledge economy i.e science/business at the expence of the humanities which are seen as irilivent. 

2. . A Business model will look to quantify i.e Move towards league tables to distinguish between so called good bad schools ignoring the fact that it is impossible to quantify valuable things that go on in state schools every day. under a privitaed system these valuable things would be marginilised. 

3. Under budgetary constraints schools will tend to want to employ cheap, less-experienced teachers over older, more experienced ones.

I could go on but I will be here all night.

Believe if you want in the powerof the business model to make education better. The business model will train our children to work in call centers and as lackies for microsoft and google but it will not educate them.

One final thing. Do you really want your kids to be "Consumers of education". There is something very philosophically worrying about that.

"There can be no education philosophy that does not address what learning is for. Confucious, Plato, Quintilian, Cicero, Comensius, Erasmus, Locke, Rousseau, Jefferson, Russell, Montissori, Whitehead, and Dewey--each believed there was some transcendent political, spiritual, or social idea that must be advanced through education...Cicero argued that education must free the student from the tyranny of the present. Jefferson thought the purpose of education is to teach the young how to protect their liberties. Rousseau wished education to free young from the unnatural constraints of a wicked and arbitrary social order. And among John Dewey's aims was to help the student function without certainty in a world of constant change and puzzling ambiguities"


----------



## S.L.F

television said:


> the aim of private business is to maximise profit as efficently and cost effectively as possible. I have nothing against that. But apply that to schools and you will end up with a disaster.



I agree with you totally on this.
Just because it might be cost effective doesn't mean it's good for the future of our most important resource, our children.

Its all very well for the children of the money men, our politicians they get to go to private schools that have no problems with funding.
My sons primary school has to scrounge money now for water rates and this problem will become worse when privatisation happens.
Its like a previous poster said our schools will be having a lot more cake sales.


----------



## television

> Doesn't a regulated private sector where competition exists benefit the consumer


 
Yes it does but not in education or health in my opinion. and if you want to be defined as a Consumer go ahead. I am a citizen however. Do you notice how ordinary people are being increasing refered to as consumers rather than citizens.


----------



## Nemesis

S.L.F said:


> And since our elected reps haven't read it either it's not really surprising that people are going to be voting no!



For McCreevy to come out and express himself the way he did about not having read the treaty was clearly stupid. It has certainly given ammunition to the No side. Cowen's statement that he had not read the treaty "cover to cover" is not unreasonable. Reading the treaty from cover to cover is pretty much a futile exercise. As has been pointed out by others it only really makes sense to read the Consolidated Treaties as amended by the Lisbon Treaty otherwise you're completely lacking the context to understand the changes. I suppose we can argue forever about what version of the Treaty he was talking about but it wouldn't get us very far as we don't know. We do know that Cowen was Minister for Foreign Affairs during the Irish Presidency of the European Union in 2004 during which time the main changes proposed under Lisbon were agreed as part of the Constitutional Treaty for Europe. I think it's reasonable to assume he has a thorough grounding in the issues given his involvement in those negotiations.

I really feel the No side are making a bit much of this though. I'm sure all the No voters here would be rushing to vote yes if only McCreevy and Cowen had solemnly declared they had read the entire tome from cover to cover several times. Somehow I doubt it. If you're already convinced malevolent Europe is out to get us what difference would that make?

In any case, you cannot conclude that the entire political class have not read the treaty and are ignorant of its contents just on the basis of these comments.


----------



## starlite68

well if we knew they had read it enterly we might be a bit confident to vote yes....its like a salesman telling you they are selling you a great product, but they are not sure exactly how it works!


----------



## diarmuidc

starlite68 said:


> well if we knew they had read it enterly we might be a bit confident to vote yes....its like a salesman telling you they are selling you a great product, but they are not sure exactly how it works!



You are still totally ignoring the fact that there are more than 3 people are tasked with reading this treaty! Do you totally disregard the opinions of 


[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]
IFA
ICMSA
[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]
and  Fianna Fail
(as I mentioned previously) or are you just looking for reasons to reinforce your prejudice against a YES vote.


----------



## starlite68

but as you have just said..these are opinions....noting more


----------



## starlite68

to awnser the last part of your question...i have not fully made up my mind how i will vote..although i am leaning towards a NO, mainly due to the issues around the privatision of health..edcuation ect. funny how our politiacians have been hedgeing around this issue..but then its hardly going to affect them!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

S.L.F said:


> Harchibald,
> it was the people of this country who voted in the goverment, who are trying to get us to vote for this.
> 
> If you are saying we can't be trusted to vote properly then in that case we voted for the wrong govt in. You can't have it both ways


I actually think the people were wrong last year. I *do* believe in democracy but that does not mean that referenda are infallible, if that were the case we would submit the more contentious aspects of Einstein's Theory of Relativity for decision by the Irish voters.

But back to the point, it is not merely that the government are promoting Yes but every conceivable government that might have been returned last year are also supporting Yes. Sinn Fein versus the Rest, sorry no brainer for me and I have read none of the Treaty.


----------



## GeneralZod

television said:


> Yes it does but not in education or health in my opinion. and if you want to be defined as a Consumer go ahead. I am a citizen however. Do you notice how ordinary people are being increasing refered to as consumers rather than citizens.



I'm not entirely convinced by the talk of a platonic ideal of education as practiced in Ireland. My memory of school was learning by rote and very little true understanding. This goes all the way up to and including undergraduate courses. I suspect there's an element of teachers fearing the private sector where their performance in educating pupils might be measured. I think they've got a lot less to fear than they think. There's a lot of under-performers that survive in the private sector too. But the merits or otherwise of privatisation is a separate discussion.

What are the specifics in the treaty that you think will lead to Irish schools and hospitals being privatised _against the will_ of the Irish people and Government?


----------



## diarmuidc

starlite68 said:


> but as you have just said..these are opinions....noting more


yes but opinions of people who have a lot of expertise, knowledge and a proven history in the area. Back to my doctor analogy. When you have a sick stomach do you regard your doctors opinion as just another opinion on a par with the butchers and priests?



starlite68 said:


> to awnser the last part of your question...i have not fully made up my mind how i will vote..although i am leaning towards a NO, mainly due to the issues around the privatision of health..edcuation ect. funny how our politiacians have been hedgeing around this issue..but then its hardly going to affect them!



What issues? The issues Sinn Fein and Coir are introducing to cloud the debate? The lisbon treaty has nothing to do with privatisation of our health or education service! Do you think closer integration with France (probably the best public health service in the world) is going to result in more privatisation of our health service. Where's the logic?


----------



## starlite68

do you really think there is not going be more and more privatisation in the years to come if we vote yes?


----------



## GeneralZod

I think yes or no will make no difference on that matter.


----------



## diarmuidc

starlite68 said:


> do you really think there is not going be more and more privatisation in the years to come if we vote yes?


I hope so, but that has nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty.


----------



## television

> The lisbon treaty has nothing to do with privatisation of our health or education service! Do you think closer integration with France (probably the best public health service in the world) is going to result in more privatisation of our health service. Where's the logic


 
The nordic system of health and education provision are under attack by neo liberalism as is the french.


----------



## television

> I hope so, but that has nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty.


 
First of all the lisbon treaty gives great significant to issues like competition and liberalisation of public services. 

Privitisation of health will lead to vast swathes of poor people not being able to afford health care. If you think thats morally right good luck to you. then again morality has nothing to do with the business ethic.


----------



## television

> I suspect there's an element of teachers fearing the private sector where their performance in educating pupils might be measured.


 
What kind of measure are you talking about. The private sector loves to quantify and control. Crude exam results are the easiest to quantify. So schools would cherry pick the good students and ignore or use methods to exclude students with speciall needs. Or exclude kids from very poor families who by and large struggle in school. And what about the teacher who genuinly cares about his/her student and whos day is spent on little thinks like sorting out students problems giving a kids self esteem a lift etc etc as well as teaching, these are unquantifyable and in a private sector education would be ignored. 

And as for third level. goverment funding for this is decreasing and the private sector are expected to take up the slack. thats fine but whats the purpose of universities? if its to feed research for industry and the creation of more and more soo called "innovative" consumer products or to create graduates to work in engineering and science. social science cources are being incresingly sidelined. Thats fine if you an executive in MS or google but is is good for the education of the community. lets get rid of history philosophy religious studies etc if there no good for industry or commerce. Do you ever hear the term "knowledge economy" have you ever wondered what kind of knowledge this implies and if this knowledge is really going to get us anywhere in the future.


----------



## television

> I'm not entirely convinced by the talk of a platonic ideal of education as practiced in Ireland


 
your happier with you and your children being constantly refered to as consumers? And the vast majorrity of teachers i know really care thier students. Yes there are crap teachers out there. But do you really think privitisation would weed them out. I dont think so. But it would definatly stop a significant amount of people who go into teaching because they see it as a vocation from doing so and these are the kind of teachers that really make a difference.


----------



## television

> When you have a sick stomach do you regard your doctors opinion as just another opinion on a par with the butchers and priests?[/QUOTE
> 
> So we simply trust our politicians with out questioning them. why have a referendum in the first place if thats the case.
> 
> Interesting article from Alan Ruddick in the sindo which i want to quote one particularly good point
> 
> The great and the good know what's best for us, and we should just trust them and move on. Well I can't. I do not trust them. I cannot stand being patronised, threatened, bullied and lied to, all at the same time, especially when the people doing the bullying have not bothered to read and understand the very document that they are trying to ram down my throat. That is reason enough to vote No, and it is why so many people have turned against the Lisbon Treaty in the past few weeks. We are being browbeaten, and we do not like it.
> 
> 
> http://www.independent.ie/national-news/mad-im-fuming-at-the-lies-they-spin-1401935.html


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

The _Sunday Times_ proudly boasts today that it alone of all the papers supports No. It, somewhat prematurely, gloats at its victory "against all odds". Sorry, but no way does Rupert Murdoch have Ireland's best interests at heart.


----------



## DavyJones

Was up in Dun laoghaire today and spoke to a man from People before profit, they are voting no. So I decided to have a poll of my own. I asked 20 random people which way they were going to vote, the result was, 16 no and 4 yes. (half of the no's were don't know but are swaying the no way) It makes for an interesting week.


----------



## GeneralZod

Kingstown is lost!

Fall back! Fall to the Keep.


----------



## Nemesis

television said:


> First of all the lisbon treaty gives great significant to issues like competition and liberalisation of public services.
> 
> Privitisation of health will lead to vast swathes of poor people not being able to afford health care. If you think thats morally right good luck to you. then again morality has nothing to do with the business ethic.



In no way does the Lisbon Treaty seek to foist the privatisation of public services on this country. This particular red herring was put to rest ages ago. I heard Joe Higgins harping on about it in a debate with Alan Dukes two weeks ago on the Pat Kenny show and he had to concede at the end there was no mechanism in the treaty to enforce the privatisation of health care or any other public service. Nothing could be done unless our own government decided to pursue such a policy.

To drag the debate off to talk about "swathes of poor people not being able to afford health care" because of Lisbon is just ridiculous.



television said:


> Interesting article from Alan Ruddick in the sindo which i want to quote one particularly good point
> 
> The great and the good know what's best for us, and we should just trust them and move on. Well I can't. I do not trust them. I cannot stand being patronised, threatened, bullied and lied to, all at the same time, especially when the people doing the bullying have not bothered to read and understand the very document that they are trying to ram down my throat. That is reason enough to vote No, and it is why so many people have turned against the Lisbon Treaty in the past few weeks. We are being browbeaten, and we do not like it.



I don't see anything particularly good about it. Seems like an over the top rant to me. Bullying? browbeaten? And exactly how have people been lied to? It doesn't seem to bother him at all the raft of lies and misinformation put out there by the No camp.




Harchibald said:


> The _Sunday Times_ proudly boasts today that it alone of all the papers supports No. It, somewhat prematurely, gloats at its victory "against all odds". Sorry, but no way does Rupert Murdoch have Ireland's best interests at heart.



It certainly suits his particular agenda and that of the Tory party for Ireland to reject this treaty. But it's not for the UK or any other country that we make this decision. It is for our own interests. It's not our job to limit or block the influence of the EU for other countries. It's our government that has to deal with the consequences of a No vote and our standing and influence that will be diminished.


----------



## Ceist Beag

Television, starlite68, you have yet to show where in the treaty it mentions anything to suggest privitisation of education or health will be promoted ... can you back up these claims? Sounds like yet more scaremongering on behalf of a No vote to me.


----------



## extopia

A No vote does not have to be taken purely in the interests of Ireland (although that's a valid position too.)

We can Vote No in the European interest as well.

By all means try to reduce Ireland's voting weight in the EU - but don't expect us to lie down and vote for that. What an arrogant position to take!

As for the assumption that Yes must be OK because FF, FG, Labour etc are all for it, there's an easy answer to that. Political parties like to be on the winning side, even if they're in opposition. They all went for the safe option as there was no credible No campaign on the horizon until very recently.


----------



## television

> In no way does the Lisbon Treaty seek to foist the privatisation of public services on this country.


groups like the round table of industrialists have had a significant input into this treaty. Their agenda is privitisation of public services. 

This is the aim of the oft-repeated EU policy: “an open market economy with free competition” in Art 105 TFEU. Protocol six of the new treaty states: “The internal market as set out in Article [1-3] ... includes a system ensuring that competition is not distorted.” Article 1-3 is about the objectives of the EU. Competition is one of the EU’s organising principles and is the framework for all other policies.
Since the 1980s the EU has also moved to restructure essential public services such as water and sanitation, public transport, energy, post and telecoms as private businesses. And now, health, education and social care systems are in focus. Neo-liberalism is EU policy, and it is pushed further by this renamed constitution.

Article 188 allows for the inclusion of health, education and social services in international trade agreements, including at the World Trade Organisation. Again confirmation that the EU sees such activities as economic in nature
"These two articles will provide the European Commission with the tools to progressively open up areas of European public services such as health and education to both internal market competition and international trade.

Lisbon would copperfasten this privatisation process by placing restrictions on how public services are funded; by enshrining the right of private contractors to bid for public services into EU treaties – rather than national law which can be changed; and by removing the veto on international trade agreements in these services – which would give private-for-profit health corporations the legal backing of international agreements in the GATS. We can change this government and reverse its policy. We can't change EU treaties or GATS agreements.




> Sounds like yet more scaremongering on behalf of a No vote to me.


 
in and around the corridors of power in Europe big busnisess interests are promoting privitisation. call that sacaremongering if you like. but these guys believe in the power of the free market to cure all our ills in education and health. and they are powerful and using politicians to promote thier agenda.


----------



## television

> Bullying? browbeaten?


 
By every political party telling us "we know this is right for you vote yes and dont ask questions" If you notice the Yes side have this indignant flustrated tone e.g.words phrases like (Red herring, Ridiculous. etc) about how stupid people on the no side are for even considering voting no. And the only reasons they are giving people for voting yes are 

1. An assorted bunch of left wing loonies and the religious right are voting no so you should vote yes.

2. We are telling you it is a good thing.

This idea of lisbon making europe less unweilding and more efficent is pretty spurious too. Do you seriously think that after lisbon the european parliment and commission will be more efficent or democratic?


----------



## csirl

The EU cant progress this treaty without an Irish Yes vote. We have them over a barrel. If we vote No, they'll have to come back and bribe us with serious concessions into voting Yes. Voting No could be the best thing that ever happened to Ireland in the EU.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

DavyJones said:


> Was up in Dun laoghaire today and spoke to a man from People before profit, they are voting no. So I decided to have a poll of my own. I asked 20 random people which way they were going to vote, the result was, 16 no and 4 yes. (half of the no's were don't know but are swaying the no way) It makes for an interesting week.


So that was you. I said No coz I thought you were some sort of crazed Shinner.


----------



## television

> To drag the debate off to talk about "swathes of poor people not being able to afford health care" because of Lisbon is just ridiculous.


 
Why so? Lissbon will promote privitisation of health care. Privitisation has been shown to benifit the rich and disadvantage the poor. That is a fact. In Ireland a two tier system is developing in health care already. The american system mainly privitised leads to millions not being able to afford basic health care and this is the way Europe is going. IS that what we really want? it is a moral decision. Do you favour a europe which cares about the poor or do you believe in the power of the free market to give us social justice.


----------



## rmelly

French minister warns of 'No' treaty vote

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0609/eulisbon.html

'The first victims would be the Irish.'


----------



## ubiquitous

television said:


> Why so? Lissbon will promote privitisation of health care. Privitisation has been shown to benifit the rich and disadvantage the poor. That is a fact. In Ireland a two tier system is developing in health care already. The american system mainly privitised leads to millions not being able to afford basic health care and this is the way Europe is going. IS that what we really want? it is a moral decision. Do you favour a europe which cares about the poor or do you believe in the power of the free market to give us social justice.



I can't help thinking that this is scaremongering at its worst. I'm no supporter of the Labour Party but they, among others, have proposed the adoption of a "universal health insurance" system to replace our current two-tier health service (the latter being nothing new, btw). This proposal is indeed modelled along some of the aspects of the US system, but is designed specifically to avoid the affordability and other problems experienced in the US. To demonise this proposal as privatisation of health care is imho either dishonest or misguided. To demonise the Lisbon Treaty on the basis that it will force us to go down this route is laughable.

Fwiw, I say this as someone who is likely to vote No.


----------



## television

And the no side are accused of scaremongering. 

Mr Kouchner said a 'No' vote from the Irish would be greeted with 'gigantic incomprehension' 

I find that incredibly arrogent but typical of the yes side.


----------



## ubiquitous

rmelly said:


> French minister warns of 'No' treaty vote
> 
> http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0609/eulisbon.html
> 
> 'The first victims would be the Irish.'



If the European bigwigs keep threatening us, they will merely undermine the Yes vote.


----------



## redstar

television said:


> Why so? Lissbon will promote privitisation of health care. Privitisation has been shown to benifit the rich and disadvantage the poor. That is a fact. In Ireland a two tier system is developing in health care already.



So will voting NO to Lisbon will stop privitisation in healthcare ?

You've answered this yourself -  "_ a two tier system is developing in health care already _". So Lisbon is irrelevant on this topic.

We already have a private health system to which many people cannot access. This is a seperate problem and NOTHING to do with Lisbon, and is, as another poster said, a red herring.


----------



## television

have you read the aspects of the treaty i quoted that promotes the further liberilisation of public services. So im sorry this is not a red herring. YEs Harney is going down the privitisation route and liberalistion of health care provision will with in the treaty make it a much smoother process.


----------



## television

> If the European bigwigs keep threatening us, they will merely undermine the Yes vote.


 
Aggree.


----------



## television

> To demonise this proposal as privatisation of health care is imho either dishonest or misguided


 
I am not demonising that proposal. However the labour party proposal you speak of is not privitisation. Within that proposal there is a mechenism where the fund would look after those who cannot afford to pay into the system. This is something I would support.


----------



## redstar

television said:


> have you read the aspects of the treaty i quoted that promotes the further liberilisation of public services. So im sorry this is not a red herring. YEs Harney is going down the privitisation route and liberalistion of health care provision will with in the treaty make it a much smoother process.



So will voting NO to Lisbon will stop privitisation in healthcare ?


----------



## Purple

television said:


> Why so? Lissbon will promote privitisation of health care. Privitisation has been shown to benifit the rich and disadvantage the poor. That is a fact. In Ireland a two tier system is developing in health care already. The american system mainly privitised leads to millions not being able to afford basic health care and this is the way Europe is going. IS that what we really want? it is a moral decision..


Firstly Lisbon does not promote the privatisation of health care. Secondly it is up to the government of this country to regulate how private healthcare is delivered. If they do wish they can impose a system which requires private hospitals to treat public patients. If private healthcare disadvantages the poor that is the fault of the government for setting and/or enforcing the rules badly, it is not the fault of those who operate within the system which the government has established.
The other rubbish peddled is that big bad capitalist America had no or minimal public health care. The fact is that America spends more per head on socialised healthcare that the EU. Just like they have free third level education for all citizens, but don’t let the facts get in the way of your ideology.



television said:


> Do you favour a europe which cares about the poor or do you believe in the power of the free market to give us social justice


 Western democracies, without exception, allow the free market to operate and then use taxation to redistribute wealth and provide social services. You suggest that the free market and social justice are mutually exclusive when in fact the wealth generated by a free market is essential for social justice. BTW, the free market is an artificial construct and can only exist when government is stronger than the market. That’s why America has anti-trust legislation and the EU can force Microsoft to change the way it sells its products.


----------



## television

It may send a message that there is some things within the european project that the irish are not going to put up with.


----------



## z105

I for one don't like to be threatened by anyone, especially Mr Bernard Kouchner ! But for my twopence worth I feel that if the treaty is rejected that it won't matter because, like Nice, it will just be put back to us in the same form, until we accept it.


----------



## television

> If private healthcare disadvantages the poor that is the fault of the government for setting and/or enforcing the rules badly, it is not the fault of those who operate within the system which the government has established.


 
If you nievely believe that big business does not influence government into making rules that help big business at the expence of the poor? lLook around the world today at the thousands of examples where the poor are being exploited because of corruption and the power of buisness. 



> Firstly Lisbon does not promote the privatisation of health care.


 
It allows for the conditions to exist where private companies will be able to compete freely for public services like health care. Id say that amounts to promotion.


----------



## rmelly

This guy probably thinks he's a shoo-in for the EU Foreign Minister post given his current role as French Foreign Minister. Well, Mr Bernard Kouchner, you may be in for a surprise.


----------



## michaelm

redstar said:


> So will voting NO to Lisbon will stop privitisation in healthcare ?


Not on its own.  We'd then need to kick out Harney & FF.  Ireland's deal under Nice (the treaty that was so good they asked twice), which was apparently required to make the EU more effective and efficient and to allow for ease of accession, is far better that what's on offer in Lisbon.  The Referendum Commission states that, in the event of a NO, the EU will continue under present rules.  Lisbon is a federal framework and a power grab by the big states.  The groundless dire warnings from the Yes camp are despicable and shameful.


----------



## television

> You suggest that the free market and social justice are mutually exclusive


 
I am not suggesting this at all. If you want to misquote me and then give an economics lesson fine.

What i am saying is that in key public services such as health and education blind unfettered free market economics does not work. It does not take into accound that these services are about the community supportting itself not because of a profit agenda but because of an overall public good. Health care cannot always be profitable. Peoples needs must come befor profit regardless of the cost.


----------



## ubiquitous

Purple said:


> Western democracies, without exception, allow the free market to operate and then use taxation to redistribute wealth and provide social services. You suggest that the free market and social justice are mutually exclusive when in fact the wealth generated by a free market is essential for social justice. BTW, the free market is an artificial construct and can only exist when government is stronger than the market. That’s why America has anti-trust legislation and the EU can force Microsoft to change the way it sells its products.


One of the biggest problems with the EU is that it tends to undermine rather than support free markets. The Lisbon Treaty appears to accentuate this, for example in the lunatic plan to commit billions to "combat climate change", which will ultimately be paid for by higher taxes.


----------



## television

> The fact is that America spends more per head on socialised healthcare that the EU


 
but the spread of this spending is uneven. Blacks hispanics and poors whites are severly disadvantaged when it comes to health care in american in terms of access and outcomes and that is a fact.


----------



## television

> If they do wish they can impose a system which requires private hospitals to treat public patients


 
Just like the goverment imposed rules on the building industry to put affordable housing in schemes in affluent areas. neatly got around that thought did nt they.


----------



## ashambles

> It allows for the conditions to exist where private companies will be able to compete freely for public services like health care


Private companies being allowed to compete for business for public services in the health services, tut-tut, whatever next.

And what about those those private sector pharma companies, from now all health research should be done by public servants only - and only Irish ones at that. No to foreign drugs. 

And those expensive scanners developed and built by private sector companies, surely the Irish hospital craftworkers could put together better ones themselves.

Close down those private clinics, as well while we're at it. Providing better care than the public hospitals - disgraceful and elitist. 

And bring GPs and dentists completely into the public system, let's ensure each GP is surrounded by several bureaucrats to ensure better "Take a ticket" queuing systems in waiting rooms.

Let's make it a 100% pure public sector health system, it'll be wonderful.


----------



## Purple

television said:


> What i am saying is that in key public services such as health and education blind unfettered free market economics does not work.


 I'm not sure what you mean here but if you are suggesting that "unfettered" free market economics exists anywhere in the Western world you are mistaken. Business is restricted by labour and environmental laws as well as laws on competition and criminal law. 



television said:


> It does not take into accound that these services are about the community supportting itself not because of a profit agenda but because of an overall public good. Health care cannot always be profitable. Peoples needs must come befor profit regardless of the cost.


 As long as the government regulates properly the two are not mutually exclusive. I agree that healthcare cannot, and should not, always be profitable. As long as the state sets the rules on what services are required and how those services are delivered I see no problem with some of them being delivered by private operators. The argument that "big business" will prey on the weak and vulnerable in this scenario is a practical one based on the belief that the government and public health managers are incompetent and will be unable to enforce the rules they set. It is not a philosophical argument against private healthcare. 



ubiquitous said:


> One of the biggest problems with the EU is that it tends to undermine rather than support free markets. The Lisbon Treaty appears to accentuate this, for example in the lunatic plan to commit billions to "combat climate change", which will ultimately be paid for by higher taxes.


 I agree. Which makes the extreme left's argument that the EU has a Neo-Con secret agenda even more ridiculous.



television said:


> but the spread of this spending is uneven. Blacks hispanics and poors whites are severly disadvantaged when it comes to health care in american in terms of access and outcomes and that is a fact.


 Their overall spend is uneven but their socialised spend favours the poor.



television said:


> Just like the goverment imposed rules on the building industry to put affordable housing in schemes in affluent areas. neatly got around that thought did nt they.


 This is an argument for reform, with increased accountability and sanction, of the public sector. Governmental incompetence is not a reason to adopt or drop a policy on private healthcare delivery or private delivery of public/social housing.


----------



## Mpsox

I'm voting yes on Thursday. The decision to me was a no-brainer. If Sinn Fein, the loony left such as Joe Higgins and weepy Patricia McKenna are against it, it must have something positive going for it.


----------



## michaelm

Mpsox said:


> I'm voting yes on Thursday. The decision to me was a no-brainer. If Sinn Fein, the loony left such as Joe Higgins and weepy Patricia McKenna are against it, it must have something positive going for it.


I think you'll find that many people will use their brain when deciding and many will vote NO based on what's in the treaty, and despite eclectic  mix on the NO side, rather than vote Yes simply because of who's for a NO.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> I think you'll find that many people will use their brain when deciding and many will vote NO based on what's in the treaty, and despite eclectic  mix on the NO side, rather than vote Yes simply because of who's for a NO.


I think you'll find that many people will vote no because they have swallowed the misinformation peddled by the loony left and the self appointed spokesmen for "Astroturf" grass-roots organisations with questionable agendas.


----------



## television

> Governmental incompetence is not a reason to adopt or drop a policy on private healthcare delivery or private delivery of public/social housing.


 
By giving responciblility for health care to private industry you immidiatly put the focus on profit rather than health care. I have no problem with private indutry by the way. A governments only role is not or should not be just to act as a regulator of the free market. And it is not government Incompetence its goverment curruption. that is a very important distinction. Incompetence suggests goverment bundling along, curruption is where gouvernment activly sides with business at the expence or ordinary citizzens.


----------



## television

> "unfettered" free market economics exists anywhere in the Western world you are mistaken


 
A key and central implication of this treaty is the idea there should be no distortion of the free market. that is one of the central messages of this treaty.


----------



## television

> Which makes the extreme left's argument that the EU has a Neo-Con secret agenda even more ridiculous.


 
I am not extreme left or anything even close. However it is plainly not ridiculous that the extreme business right or the neo-liberal agenda is becoming more and more influential in Europe.


Its interesting that in the 50s in America it was a government ploy to tarnish descent by calling people "commies" I see similar overtones to the yes side tarnishing of people against the treaty. For "commies" read extreme left.


----------



## michaelm

Purple said:


> I think you'll find that many people will vote no because they have swallowed the misinformation peddled by the loony left and the self appointed spokesmen for "Astroturf" grass-roots organisations with questionable agendas.


Maybe.  Certainly that's how the Irish Times and FF will explain a NO, dismissing any possibility of rejection on merit.


----------



## ubiquitous

television said:


> Its interesting that in the 50s in America it was a government ploy to tarnish descent by calling people "commies" I see similar overtones to the yes side tarnishing of people against the treaty. For "commies" read extreme left.



And yet, you seem happy to toss around labels like "extreme business right" & "the neo-liberal agenda".


----------



## television

> This is an argument for reform, with increased accountability and sanction, of the public sector


 
Why?


----------



## television

> "extreme business right or the neo-liberal agenda".


 
Because it is a fact there is evidence. i have done some research on Education policy and education in Europe and it is factual that business is becoming more and more influencial in this sector and it is my view that education is suffering and will continue to suffer because of this. I am not some looney conspiricy theorist but business interests are dominating in europe today. You may see this as acceptable.  I think citizens need to balance the need for business to thrive with the needs of citizens to live in a fair society. and these two things are not mutually inclusive. Sometimes business exploits and treats people unfairly. Yes one answer to this is government regulation. But another is to keep essential public services like health and education in the hands of the public sector. And yes we need public sector reform but not privitisation.


----------



## Purple

television said:


> By giving responciblility for health care to private industry you immidiatly put the focus on profit rather than health care. I have no problem with private indutry by the way. A governments only role is not or should not be just to act as a regulator of the free market.


 The government should concern it’s self with delivering the best and most efficient healthcare to the citizens of this country. They should not allow the vested interests within the health service to dictate how services are delivered nor should they take anything other than a pragmatic approach when formulating policy.   



television said:


> And it is not government Incompetence its goverment curruption. that is a very important distinction. Incompetence suggests goverment bundling along, curruption is where gouvernment activly sides with business at the expence or ordinary citizzens.


 Rubbish. Corruption is when people act outside the law by offering or accepting inducements to influence decisions. Incompetence is when the government is inefficient and wasteful and cannot effectively enforce the laws and rules it enacts or execute policies it adopts.


----------



## Purple

television said:


> A key and central implication of this treaty is the idea there should be no distortion of the free market. that is one of the central messages of this treaty.


 Incorrect. They seek to prevent distortion of the open market. There is a big difference between the two.



television said:


> Why?


 Answered in the rest of that quote.

BTW, it's enjoyable to discuss this with you but it would be easier if you could reply to one post with one post. Try copying and pasting into MS Word and just copy and paste the quote tags around the sections that you want to reply to.


----------



## redstar

michaelm said:


> Maybe.  Certainly that's how the Irish Times and FF will explain a NO, dismissing any possibility of rejection on merit.



Well, it won't be rejected on merit if no-one has read it.


----------



## ubiquitous

television said:


> Because it is a fact there is evidence. i have done some research on Education policy and education in Europe and it is factual that business is becoming more and more influencial in this sector and it is my view that education is suffering and will continue to suffer because of this. I am not some looney conspiricy theorist but business interests are dominating in europe today. You may see this as acceptable.  I think citizens need to balance the need for business to thrive with the needs of citizens to live in a fair society. and these two things are not mutually inclusive. Sometimes business exploits and treats people unfairly. Yes one answer to this is government regulation. But another is to keep essential public services like health and education in the hands of the public sector. And yes we need public sector reform but not privitisation.



Yes, but none of this explains how you can justify branding others with labels like "the extreme business right" or "the neo-liberal agenda", while  at the same time you accuse others of being McCarthyite. 

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't necessarily mean that they are "extreme" or "neo-con".


----------



## television

> Rubbish. Corruption is when people act outside the law by offering or accepting inducements to influence decisions.
> there are levels of curruption. You can not just say that because


 
Yes of cource you are right on this definition of curruption but it is not the only definition or explaination of curruprion.it is also where the government sides with the needs of business over the needs of people. Curruption takes on many forms and is a fluid concept. Sometimes business inlfuence laws/sets the agenda for laws to suits their own agenda the expence of peoples social need. for me this is no less curruption.


----------



## television

ubiquitous said:


> Yes, but none of this explains how you can justify branding others with labels like "the extreme business right" or "the neo-liberal agenda", while at the same time you accuse others of being McCarthyite.
> 
> Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't necessarily mean that they are "extreme" or "neo-con".


 
I am arguign that big business has a huge influence on europen social policy today. And broadly speaking these groups like the European Round table of Indulstrialists have a neo liberal economic outlook.


----------



## Purple

television said:


> Yes of cource you are right on this definition of curruption but it is not the only definition or explaination of curruprion.it is also where the government sides with the needs of business over the needs of people. Curruption takes on many forms and is a fluid concept. Sometimes business inlfuence laws/sets the agenda for laws to suits their own agenda the expence of peoples social need. for me this is no less curruption.


 I disagree that it is necessara;ly corruption but I agree that it is undesirable. Abe Lincoln said it best when he said that government should be “By the people, of the people and for the people”. 
The great thing about representative democracy is that if our government does act in the way you have outlined we can elect a different one.


----------



## television

> The government should concern it’s self with delivering the best and most efficient healthcare to the citizens of this country.


 
Absolutly aggreed but the private sector will not achieve this because of a very siomple ecomomic priciple.

Minimise costs/Maximise profit.

Nothing against that at all. But it Will not work in health.


----------



## television

> The great thing about representative democracy is that if our government does act in the way you have outlined we can elect a different one.


 
Fair point.


----------



## redstar

Interesting to see that the Bush administration hope for a NO vote. One of their 'advisors' in Dublin this week sees a more united Europe as a threat to NATO. They fear if the EU can co-operate closer militarily, they won't need NATO.
Surely Libertas/SF etc ... would welcome any reduction in NATO power in Europe ?


----------



## television

[broken link removed]


----------



## Mpsox

michaelm said:


> I think you'll find that many people will use their brain when deciding and many will vote NO based on what's in the treaty, and despite eclectic mix on the NO side, rather than vote Yes simply because of who's for a NO.


 
You are absolutely correct and I will be using my brain and voting yes, as opposed to believing the garbage and hypocrcy peddled by former terrorists and child killers about "neutrality", garbage peddled by purveyors of failed political "isms" such as marxism and garbage peddled by people like Patrica McKenna who is anti everything without having a creative idea in her brain


----------



## Simeon

Dunphy says NO, so that should concentrate the minds of the waverers. I wonder if that was before or after powdering his nose?


----------



## Caveat

Caveat said:


> Yes, I received the 'booklet'. I'm not going to read it...etc


 
I take this back.  Silly comment, posted in anger. An empty protest really directed at the government and their handling of all this. Of course everyone should read this and I have now done so.

Not much wiser though, but for various reasons ( I'm generally pro-Europe, relative 'trust' of those I voted for, mistrust of the naysayers etc)I will say that I've decided to vote yes.


----------



## television

> You are absolutely correct and I will be using my brain and voting yes, as opposed to believing the garbage and hypocrcy peddled by former terrorists and child killers about "neutrality", garbage peddled by purveyors of failed political "isms" such as marxism and garbage peddled by people like Patrica McKenna who is anti everything without having a creative idea in her brain


 
. Absolutly aggree wth you that a lot on the no side (with the exception of patrica mccenna who i find to be articulate passionate and on the side of ordinary people) of the debate are complete loonies but if thats your only reason for voting yes then its not a great one.


----------



## television

> purveyors of failed political "isms" such as marxism.


 
Im reminded of the scene from the life of brian where the zelot terrorists are criticising the romans and saying "what have the romans ever done for us". What has the left wing ever done for us? Let me see now. The left wing may have had its problems and f\aults but I trust the ideas of workers uniting for a common purpose over leaving the business elete to decide on matters for us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaE3EaQte78


----------



## rmelly

For all the posters that use not siding with the loonies as a reason to vote Yes, can I take it that you are/were for example in favour of the Iraq liberation, use of Shannon as a stop over by US military etc?

These are the same groups vehemently opposed to both.


----------



## Purple

rmelly said:


> For all the posters that use not siding with the loonies as a reason to vote Yes, can I take it that you are/were for example in favour of the Iraq liberation, use of Shannon as a stop over by US military etc?
> 
> These are the same groups vehemently opposed to both.


As were many in the main steam of Irish politics.
I was in favour of the invasion but not the balls-up they made of it.
I am in favour of allowing US planes refuel in Shannon.


----------



## Simeon

Sorry about the confusion ........ I concluded that since he knows so little about European football ....... I could use that as a yardstick.


----------



## ubiquitous

television said:


> Absolutly aggreed but the private sector will not achieve this because of a very siomple ecomomic priciple.
> 
> Minimise costs/Maximise profit.



This is codswallop. Any business run on the sole principle of Minimise costs/Maximise profit will survive for only a very short time. A business will only be successful in the medium to long term if it capable of generating profits through sustainable business activities, and in compliance with the rules and norms of civilised society. We have moved on quite a bit from the days of the robber barons.


----------



## rmelly

Purple said:


> As were many in the main steam of Irish politics.
> I was in favour of the invasion but not the balls-up they made of it.
> I am in favour of allowing US planes refuel in Shannon.


 
So it can be acceptable to be on the side of the loonies? In this case much of 'old' Europe disagreed with Iraq though - France, Germany etc.

And I don't believe all of the mainstream parties were in favour (e.g. Labour, Greens) - I know you didn't say all before you point that out.

It seems to me that this argument is only trotted out when it suits, and as such it is one I dismissed from day one.

My willingness to be on the same side as the loonies should be seen as an indication of the strength of my convictions, not be used to demean me.


----------



## Purple

ubiquitous said:


> This is codswallop. Any business run on the sole principle of Minimise costs/Maximise profit will survive for only a very short time. A business will only be successful in the medium to long term if it capable of generating profits through sustainable business activities, and in compliance with the rules and norms of civilised society. We have moved on quite a bit from the days of the robber barons.


Very well put.


----------



## Purple

rmelly said:


> My willingness to be on the same side as the loonies should be seen as an indication of the strength of my convictions, not be used to demean me.


 That goes without saying


----------



## Mpsox

rmelly said:


> For all the posters that use not siding with the loonies as a reason to vote Yes, can I take it that you are/were for example in favour of the Iraq liberation, use of Shannon as a stop over by US military etc?
> 
> These are the same groups vehemently opposed to both.


 

yes I was in support of the liberation of Iraq and the removal of one of the most evil dictators of the last few hundred years. Yes, I have no issue with the Shannon stopover. Do I believe the US cocked it all up, most definately, but that is no reason not to support their aim in the first place


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

That French fellow really spelt it out in a way that BC etc. dare not. We *will* be punished if we say No a second time. Unfortunately it is debatable whether this foreign intervention will be a help or a hindrance to the Yes campaign.

Yes, we are being bullied into this.

Yes, we are being asked to vote a dimunition of our influence.

Yes, we would prefer if things could continue as they are.

But there's the rub, and we needed a French guy to warn us, we cannot preserve the cozy status quo forever.

The RC very misleadingly suggested that the continuation of the status quo is an option and Rupert Murdoch in yesterday's Sunday Times mischeivously reminded us of that RC statement. 

Looney left, unrepentent terrorists, naive idealists, now add the worst of all, Rupert Murdock and the British fascists and to repeat the Irish Times editorial, how can we possibly be toying with the suicidal madness of a No vote.


----------



## ubiquitous

Harchibald said:


> Looney left, unrepentent terrorists, naive idealists, now add the worst of all, Rupert Murdock and the British fascists



I think it is wrong to dismiss a significant proportion of the electorate in this way, regardless of whether their votes amount to 30% or 50+% of the total.


----------



## television

> This is codswallop. Any business run on the sole principle of Minimise costs/Maximise profit will survive for only a very short time. A business will only be successful in the medium to long term if it capable of generating profits through sustainable business activities, and in compliance with the rules and norms of civilised society.


 
The primary objective of business activity is to maximise profit. Obviously within the rule of law. although I can lsit out hundereds of example where businesses frequently break laws in the pursuit of profits. Dont be nieve. Look at how businesses have acted in the underdeveloped world where your so called rules of civilised  society are ignord and people exploited.


----------



## ubiquitous

television said:


> The primary objective of business activity is to maximise profit. Obviously within the rule of law. although I can lsit out hundereds of example where businesses frequently break laws. Dont be nieve



As someone who runs a business myself, I find your conclusions to be extremely simplistic. Its a bit like saying that a typical employee and/or civil servant's primary motivation is to collect their paycheque at the end of every week and that they don't give a damn whether they do any work in return.  Anyone who would argue this would be rightfully laughed at. The same applies to those who are similarly prejudiced against business and enterprise, or indeed government.


----------



## michaelm

Harchibald said:


> Yes, we are being bullied into this.


Thursday/Friday will tell whether the the Irish people will capitulate to bullying.


----------



## Purple

television said:


> The primary objective of business activity is to maximise profit. Obviously within the rule of law. although I can lsit out hundereds of example where businesses frequently break laws in the pursuit of profits. Dont be nieve. Look at how businesses have acted in the underdeveloped world where your so called rules of civilised  society are ignord and people exploited.



I also run a business and find your comments simplistic and offensive.
The reason that businesses (or more accurately; people) exploit others in underdeveloped countries in that the civil government is weak, corrupt or non-existent (or a combination there of). We live in a democracy where businesses (and the people who run them) are subject to the laws of the land and must operate within the constraints that those laws impose.
Your views on how businesses exploit people in the developing world are simplistic in the extreme. If you wish to debate that point I would be happy to do so in a different thread.


----------



## television

> I also run a business and find your comments simplistic and offensive.


 
Im sorry that i have pointed out a simple economic principle that business men usually go into business to make a profit. That is offencive to you? Why?



> The reason that businesses (or more accurately; people) exploit others in underdeveloped countries in that the civil government is weak, corrupt or non-existent (or a combination there of).


 
and you call my argument simplictic??????

The resaons why businesses or people who run businesses exploit the developing world are complexed and far more complexed than your explaination above and yes deserves a seperate Post.


----------



## Nemesis

rmelly said:


> So it can be acceptable to be on the side of the loonies? In this case much of 'old' Europe disagreed with Iraq though - France, Germany etc.
> 
> And I don't believe all of the mainstream parties were in favour (e.g. Labour, Greens) - I know you didn't say all before you point that out.
> 
> It seems to me that this argument is only trotted out when it suits, and as such it is one I dismissed from day one.
> 
> My willingness to be on the same side as the loonies should be seen as an indication of the strength of my convictions, not be used to demean me.



The argument really only holds where you have to make a decision on the basis of trust. If you don't have the time to absorb all the details of the treaty or you simply don't understand everything in it then it has to come down to who you trust most. I think even where you have satisfied yourself you understand the treaty, you still have to attach some significance to the opinion of others. It can't be discounted entirely. 

The parties of the political mainstream are united in calling for a Yes vote. It's very easy to be cynical about our elected leaders and god knows we have good reason to be, but at the end of the day we elected them. This is not a Mugabe style state where we cannot rid ourselves of them and neither are the other 26 states that will ratify this treaty. I didn't vote for this government and I can't say I'm inspired by the opposition parties either, but I'll trust them and value their advice any day over the crazy coalition of groups from the far left and right that are telling us to vote down this treaty.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

television said:


> and you call my argument *simplictic*??????
> 
> The *resaons* why businesses or people who run businesses exploit the developing world are *complexed* and far more *complexed* than your *explaination* above.


 
TV you seem to be involved in education, I hope not English


----------



## Nemesis

Sinn Fein and Libertas were banging on about a "better deal" again today. It sounds so reasonable and persuasive when you hear it first but when you actually stop and think about what they're really saying, it quickly becomes apparent just how nonsensical their position is.

It is patently absurd to argue on the one hand that the Irish government have been conned into signing up for a disastrous deal for Ireland and then proclaim your confidence in the very same people to negotiate a better deal with the other 26 countries in the aftermath of a No vote. Yet this is exactly what Declan Ganley and Mary Lou McDonald have said in recent statements. If our elected representatives have sold us down the river as the No side seem to think then clearly these same people are not fit to face Europe again, not fit to negotiate on anything. And to send them, humiliated by a crushing vote of no confidence from their own people to face 26 other countries would be a futile exercise indeed. The only logic of this position is to send Sinn Fein representatives to do the job as they clearly know what they're talking about. Or perhaps Mr Ganley, but then he hasn't been elected by anyone. Perhaps Joe Higgins but then he's no longer in the Dail. It's a difficult one isn't it? Maybe we could have another referendum to decide exactly who would do it. We might even send a delegation including representatives from all the No groups. In the interests of transparency and to ensure they too wouldn't be tempted to sell us out with offers of big jobs or financial inducements, such negotiations should occur in public. Such an arrangement would at the very least provide some entertainment value, more fun I'm sure than even watching Dustin in Belgrade. Yes a "better deal" indeed. I'm sure that's just what we'd get alright


----------



## GeneralZod

The no side speak with a forked tongue. Renegotiating the Lisbon treaty which at the time was regarded as a triumph for Irish diplomacy is mad. We'd be guaranteed to come out of the aftermath of a no vote with a worse deal. 

The farmers/IFA played it right. They got a real concession from the government on a commitment to veto an unfavorable WTO deal. The government will be able to say to the rest of Europe that they had to commit to the veto to secure the yes vote.


----------



## room305

television said:


> Because it is a fact there is evidence. i have done some research on Education policy and education in Europe and it is factual that business is becoming more and more influencial in this sector and it is my view that education is suffering and will continue to suffer because of this.


 


television said:


> I am arguign that big business has a huge influence on europen social policy today. And broadly speaking these groups like the European Round table of Indulstrialists have a neo liberal economic outlook.


 
This is a simplistic, nonsensical outlook. To argue that every business owner is a crazed right-wing neo-con is about as sensible as maintaining every public sector worker is a communist. George Soros, for example, is a billionaire financier and speculator whose ideologies are too left-wing for my tastes.

Seriously people, we're arguing about France having some crazed secret libertarian agenda. France. The country where people rioted when the government tried to introduce laws that allowed workers under the age of 26 to be dismissed without reason in their first two years of employment.


----------



## television

Harchibald said:


> TV you seem to be involved in education, I hope not English


 
No not english. this is a debate about the lisbon treaty and its implications however.


----------



## television

> that every business owner is a crazed right-wing neo-con


 
I dont think I have actually argued that? And if you want to create false arguments on my behalf and then break them down good luck to you. But it really means nothing


----------



## television

I am arguing that big business interests have an agenda to introduce privitised education in europe. I am not the only person arguing this. I am not here however to give you lectures on this. Do some simple research. I would suggest you read Michael Apple. A very well respected academic. 

http://www.curriculosemfronteiras.org/vol1iss1articles/appleeng.pdf


----------



## television

I am arguing that big business cross national mulit national companies by an large unless carefully regulated will exploit people. This is not conspiracy theory this is fact.


----------



## room305

television said:


> I dont think I have actually argued that? And if you want to create false arguments on my behalf and then break them down good luck to you. But it really means nothing


 
You have used the term "business" on multiple posts to denote anybody or anything representing what you call a "neo-liberal" or "extreme right-wing" outlook. By extension you imply that any government that is business-friendly or pro-business, is dedicated to pursuing a neo-conservative agenda.

I am not creating a strawman argument here, this is what you have written. In fact your next two posts state:



television said:


> I am arguing that big business interests have an agenda to introduce privitised education in europe ... I am arguing that big business cross national mulit national companies by an large unless carefully regulated will exploit people. This is not conspiracy theory this is fact.


 
I might never convince you that Apple, Microsoft and The Coca-Cola Company have not formed some shadowy new world order cabal with the French and German governments, dedicated to turning our youth into some European version of the American Conservative Youth Union through the medium of privatised education. 

However, can you point to something specifically in the Lisbon Treaty that facilitates this, or is your opinion based on a general anti-EU stance?


----------



## television

> You have used the term "business" on multiple posts to denote anybody or anything representing what you call a "neo-liberal" or "extreme right-wing" outlook. By implication you assume any government that is business-friendly or pro-business, is dedicated to pursuing a neo-conservative agenda


 
I actually used the tem in that post BIG BUSINESS if you cARE TO LOOK AGAIN. I am nOT saying that the local shop keeper or the guy that cuts your hair is a neo liberal. 

And just because you say 





> I am not creating a strawman argument here,


 does not give you the right to do just that.

I have not said that all business is right wing or neoliberal. I have said that there is a very pro business agenda in Europe and that Lisbon treaty allows for the opening up of public services to competition and prvitisation. i do not think this is a good thing for the reasons I have outlined above.



> might never convince you that Apple, Microsoft and The Coca-Cola Company have not formed some shadowy new world


 
I will point you to the European Round table of industrialists re this point. Im not a conspiricy theorist but this is a real organisation and it has a very right wing and neo liberal agenda and this is harmful for health aND EDUCATION in my opinion.



Finally I am happy to debate this point with you but please stop misrepresenting what I am actually saying


----------



## television

> However, can you point to something specifically in the Lisbon Treaty that facilitates this, or is your opinion based on a general anti-EU stance?


 
I have already refered to specific articles of the treaty that i believe would lead to the conditions by which privitisation would be facilitated.


----------



## GeneralZod

television said:


> I have already refered to specific articles of the treaty that i believe would lead to the conditions by which privitisation would be facilitated.



You've quoted No campaign propaganda that misrepresents articles of the treaty.

Give us a direct link to an official source that backs up your privatisation claims.


----------



## television

> [FONT=EUAlbertina+20][FONT=EUAlbertina+20]‘[/FONT]By establishing a customs union in accordance with Articles 23 to 27, the Union shall [/FONT][FONT=EUAlbertina+20]contribute, in the common interest, to the harmonious development of world trade, the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade[/FONT]​


 

It may be argued by global health provision companies that goverment support of education and health is a form of restrictive practice to global trade.​


----------



## ubiquitous

television said:


> [FONT=EUAlbertina+20]
> [/FONT]
> It may be argued by global health provision companies that goverment support of education and health is a form of restrictive practice to global trade.​


----------



## television

> The common commercial policy shall be based on uniform principles, particularly with regard to changes in tariff rates, the conclusion of tariff and trade agreements relating to trade in goods and services, and the commercial aspects of intellectual property, foreign direct investment, the achievement of uniformity in measures of liberalisation,


 


> [FONT=EUAlbertina+20][FONT=EUAlbertina+20]By establishing a customs union in accordance with Articles 23 to 27, the Union shall contribute, in the common interest, to the harmonious development of world trade, the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade and on foreign direct investment, and the lowering of customs and other barriers.[FONT=EUAlbertina+20]’[/FONT];
> ​[/FONT][/FONT]​​




Then it goes on to say​ 


> For the negotiation and conclusion of agreements in the fields of trade in services and the commercial aspects of intellectual property, as well as foreign direct investment, the Council shall act unanimously.


 



> The Council shall also act unanimously for the negotiation and conclusion of agreements:
> 
> (a) in the field of trade in cultural and audiovisual services, where these agreements risk prejudicing the Union's cultural and linguistic diversity;
> 
> (b) in the field of trade in social, education and health services, where these agreements risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them.


 

So you see tecnically Ireland has a VETO in regards the opening up of our public services (schools+Hospitals) to privitisation, but that veto is in the context of this important phrase "where these agreements risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them" Now if Mary Harney does not think these aggreements risk seriosuly disturbing the national organisation of such services" which I guarentee she does not, then this can allow her to introduce privitisation.​ 
This is my opinion based on my reading of relivent section of the treaty. I am not parroting anyone but making an analysis based on my reading and on the kind of big business forces that are very influencial around the corridors of power in Europe who ensure such wording to stregthen the possition. 


​


----------



## ubiquitous

To be honest, I am baffled by your analysis. I can't make any sense of what you are saying. 

The  phrase "where these agreements risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them" is in my opinion a strong defence of national governments' rights to maintain the status quo in the areas of social, education and health services. 

In my view, it means that these areas are immune from being opened up to free trade. 

And, although I am not an expert on EU law, I cannot imagine the EU allowing Mary Harney or any other domestic Minister the right to make binding policy decisions on matters like this.


----------



## television

ubiquitous said:


>


 
If you want to argue with me on the merits or other wise of what i am saying then please do. But cheap emote responses that actuall say nothing really is not constructive.


----------



## ubiquitous

Okay then, I will spell it out in English:

I find this comment...


> It may be argued by global health provision companies that goverment support of education and health is a form of restrictive practice to global trade.


...laughable and confusing - for the reasons set out in my most recent post.


----------



## television

> The phrase "where these agreements risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them" is in my opinion a strong defence of national governments' rights to maintain the status quo in the areas of social, education and health services.


  No, Not if the government is idelogically bend on introducing privitisation (as is the case with Mary Harney) . If this is the case then this section of the treaty actually gives them room within the euroepan project to do that.


----------



## television

> And, although I am not an expert on EU law, I cannot imagine the EU allowing Mary Harney or any other domestic Minister the right to make binding policy decisions on matters like this.


 
No not european wide but it gives a back door for privitisation to be brought in country by country. As long as privitiation does not 




> seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them


----------



## ubiquitous

television said:


> No, Not if the government is idelogically bend on introducing privitisation (as is the case with Mary Harney) . If this is the case then this section of the treaty actually gives them room within the euroepan project to do that.



But I thought that the whole point of the Lisbon Treaty (and, one might argue, of the EU as a whole) is to reduce national governments' powers in certain areas in favour of concentrating power centrally within the EU itself. Otherwise, please explain why the EU elite are so insistent that the Treaty is passed, if it means that they lose power once it takes effect?


----------



## television

I accept that you may be confused. Thats fine this is a complexed issue. But perhaps you could suggest a more constructive phrase than laughable. I am trying to give an analysis on points of the treaty. You are free to disagree with this analysis and offer a counter analysis. But words like laughable without a coherent argument mean nothing.


----------



## ubiquitous

television said:


> No not european wide but it gives a back door for privitisation to be brought in country by country.



Again, this does not make sense. The Treaty, and the EU in general, are designed to reduce and/or eliminate administrative differences between member states, not increase them.


----------



## television

ubiquitous said:


> But I thought that the whole point of the Lisbon Treaty (and, one might argue, of the EU as a whole) is to reduce national governments' powers in certain areas in favour of concentrating power centrally within the EU itself.


 
I dont think advocates of the yes vote would aggree with your analysis of what Lisbon is about. 



ubiquitous said:


> Otherwise, please explain why the EU elite are so insistent that the Treaty is passed, if it means that they lose power once it takes effect?


 
Could you clarify this?


----------



## ubiquitous

television said:


> But perhaps you could suggest a more constructive phrase than laughable.



bizarre?


----------



## television

ubiquitous said:


> The Treaty, and the EU in general, are designed to reduce and/or eliminate administrative differences between member states, not increase them.


 
Can you explain what you are talkign about here?


----------



## ubiquitous

television said:


> * Originally Posted by ubiquitous
> But I thought that the whole point of the Lisbon Treaty (and, one might argue, of the EU as a whole) is to reduce national governments' powers in certain areas in favour of concentrating power centrally within the EU itself.*
> 
> if that is the case which i dont actually think pro Lisbon treaty advocates would argue is. I see that as a definate case for voting no.



Yes, that is one of the reasons why I am voting No. Which is why I find your line of argument bizarre.


----------



## television

> bizarre?


 
Is a word.

And i mean an argument. I find discussing the treaty and its implications interesting. What I am not interesed in doing however is playing mindless wordgames etc.


----------



## television

> Yes, that is one of the reasons why I am voting No. Which is why I find your line of argument bizarre.


 
You really are loosing me now? I just cannot follow what you are saying.


----------



## television

> Otherwise, please explain why the EU elite are so insistent that the Treaty is passed, if it means that they lose power once it takes effect?


 
Why do you think the implecation of my argument is that EU eletes will loose power?


----------



## ubiquitous

television said:


> Why do you think the implecation of my argument is that EU eletes will loose power?



Because you say that the Treaty allows individual governments to introduce privatisation in the areas of social, health and educational services, if they feel like it, and that domestic ministers like Mary Harney will have the final say on this.


----------



## television

no because the eletes (multinational pharmacuticals and Global health coopperations) of which I speak are in favour of privitisation. They would support harney in this.


----------



## ubiquitous

television said:


> no because the eletes (multinational pharmacuticals and Global health coopperations) of which I speak are in favour of privitisation. They would support harney in this.



Who or what on earth are the "multinational pharmacuticals and Global health coopperations"? What status have they in EU Law? What primacy do they have over the EU institutions like the Council of Ministers and the Commission? And what do you make of the fact that any given time the EU member states have usually at least as many left-wing governments (who would normally be expected to oppose privatisation) as right-wing ones (who would normally be expected to support privatisation)? Hence where is this big conspiracy to introduce privatisation all over the EU, if, as you say, the matter is to be decided upon by each individual government?


----------



## redstar

television said:


> I am arguing that big business interests have an agenda to introduce privitised education in europe.





> the eletes (multinational pharmacuticals and Global health coopperations) of which I speak are in favour of privitisation.



If passing the Treaty will facilitate rampant privatisation in education and health, why on earth do Labour and the major unions support the Treaty ?


----------



## television

If you are so nieve to believe that there is complete seperation between the commission and the council of ministers and big business then there is very little more I can say to you on this matter. Let me however give you one example of what i am talking about in education.

http://www.elig.org/

This is an industry led group that advocate and lobbies within Europe for further implimentation of technology with european education. Noble enough cause you may say. We all want our children to be technologically literate etc. But this groups real role is to stimulate demand for technology products in Europe and where better to start than among our children. 

And even leaving aside what their motivations are. This is a real organisation which consists of multinationals which does lobby in Europe on these issues and is very influencial.


----------



## television

Again let me say i am not a marxist. But these things are happening. Big business is becoming very powerful in the european project.


----------



## television

redstar said:


> If passing the Treaty will facilitate rampant privatisation in education and health, why on earth do Labour and the major unions support the Treaty ?


 
Fair point. 

Im not sure why? 

But let explain my argument.

1. social partnership may have had its benifits to ireland but one negative is that it allowed leaders of unions to get too close to government. This has meant soem unions leaders do not want to be marginilised from future social partnership talks and are so are supporting the government for this reason.

2. as far as Labour are concerned I really dont know?


----------



## ubiquitous

television said:


> http://www.elig.org/
> 
> This is an industry led group that advocate and lobbies within Europe for further implimentation of technology with european education. Noble enough cause you may say. We all want our children to be technologically literate etc. But this groups real role is to stimulate demand for technology products in Europe and where better to start than among our children.



These damn comphuters!They're all a scam! Being shoved down our throats! And now they're after our kids as well! Damn Yanks! I told you we were better off when we hadn't an This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language in our trousers! Down with this sort of thing!


----------



## television

> These damn comphuters! Its all a scam! And now they're after our kids as well! I told you we were better off when we hadn't an This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language in our trousers! Down with this sort of thing!


 
If you want to be facetious (and ok mildly humorous) fine. But you did ask a question to me, i.e.



> Who or what on earth are the "multinational pharmacuticals and Global health coopperations"?


 
I was giving you an example from the field of education because this is my speciality. And I guarentee there are similar groups in pharmasucticals etc. And these groups do lobby the commission and the council of ministers. their agenda is utlimatly to maximise profits and sometimes the outcome of this lobbying is at the expence of the rights of citizens. 



> And now they're after our kids as well!


 
I realise you are trying to be funny but I find your attitude kind of nieve. Do you seriously think these companies do not target children as potential complient consumers? Maybe you thin k it is okay that kids are targeted at a young age and brainwashed to consume thinks they dont need. Maybe you think its okay that our very education system has the potential to be used to do this. I however am against using our education system and a marketing tool.

From my own experience technology is being foisted opon students that is completly useless for thier education but looks good. I am all for technology in education but appropriate technology that adds value to the education of a student. the trouble is that when technology companies get involved in education they simply promote thier own products. there is no critical evaluation what so ever of thier actual value. If you do question their value or even ask for open evaluation you leave yourself open to being ostracised as being anti technology and backward.


----------



## csirl

> Big business is becoming very powerful in the european project.


 
What is "big business"? You give the impression that there is a madcap "stonecutters" conspiracy out there.

Behind what you call "big business" are people - employees earning a living and shareholders, many of whom are ordinary people or pension funds paying ordinary retired people. There isnt a small bunch of Mr. Burns style evil people who own most multinationals and meet regularly to decide how to screw ordinary people. 


Though, one thing did strike me concerning the Yes side argument that multinationals are in favour of a Yes vote. The argument being made by the Yes side is that because Irish based multinationals are in favour, then the EU-wide corporation tax must not be on the horizon. This may not be correct. The multinationals could be in favour of a Yes vote and EU-wide corporation tax. The reason being that at the moment, Ireland is the only show in town for multinationals. If they want an advantage in trading in the EU, they have to be based in Ireland - if they are based elsewhere, they put themselves at a disadvantage vis a vis competitors who are based in Ireland. However, if there is an EU wide corporation tax, then this advantage/disadvantage of locating or not locating in Ireland is neutralised. They can locate where ever they want. It enables them to chose a location that is closer to the bulk of their customers than Ireland or one where the workforce or raw materials are more readily available. Ireland loses out big time in this scenario. The counter argument to this is that they will make less profits if they have to pay higher corporation tax. Not true, they can simply jack up prices to compensate for the higher taxes. With an EU wide corporation tax, they cannot be undercut by a competitor with a lower tax rate and due to the EUs closed market, they cannot be undercut by non-EU based companies. The vast majority of big companies would prefer to be judged in the market place solely by the quality and price of their goods and services with tax rates being a non issue.


----------



## michaelm

*Re: The Television Debate*

Methinks that television has racked up a record number of post for a given thread.  The Title should probably be changed to 'The Television Debate'.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

TV, do you mind my asking, and I mean no offence here, but is English your first language? Your mispellings do become irritating after a while. BTW _privits_ are hedges, _privates_ are something quite different, hence the earlier quip from some wag about hedge schools.


----------



## television

> BTW _privits_ are hedges, _privates_ are something quite different


 
Explain please?


----------



## television

*Re: The Television Debate*



michaelm said:


> Methinks that television has racked up a record number of post for a given thread. The Title should probably be changed to 'The Television Debate'.


 
I gladly take on the title.

Although this thread is supposed to be about the lisbon treaty maybe we can get back to that.


----------



## television

> TV, do you mind my asking, and I mean no offence here, but is English your first language?


 
Yes English is my first languege. And no offence is taken. ALthougth I just bet you were trying to be offencive


----------



## television

csirl said:


> Though, one thing did strike me concerning the Yes side argument that multinationals are in favour of a Yes vote. The argument being made by the Yes side is that because Irish based multinationals are in favour, then the EU-wide corporation tax must not be on the horizon. This may not be correct. The multinationals could be in favour of a Yes vote and EU-wide corporation tax. The reason being that at the moment, Ireland is the only show in town for multinationals. If they want an advantage in trading in the EU, they have to be based in Ireland - if they are based elsewhere, they put themselves at a disadvantage vis a vis competitors who are based in Ireland. However, if there is an EU wide corporation tax, then this advantage/disadvantage of locating or not locating in Ireland is neutralised. They can locate where ever they want. It enables them to chose a location that is closer to the bulk of their customers than Ireland or one where the workforce or raw materials are more readily available. Ireland loses out big time in this scenario. The counter argument to this is that they will make less profits if they have to pay higher corporation tax. Not true, they can simply jack up prices to compensate for the higher taxes. With an EU wide corporation tax, they cannot be undercut by a competitor with a lower tax rate and due to the EUs closed market, they cannot be undercut by non-EU based companies. The vast majority of big companies would prefer to be judged in the market place solely by the quality and price of their goods and services with tax rates being a non issue.


 
A logical anaysis.


----------



## michaelm

csirl said:


> There isnt a small bunch of Mr. Burns style evil people who own most multinationals and meet regularly to decide how to screw ordinary people.


Maybe not.  But the Bilderberg group - bankers, politicians, Presidents, media moguls, etc - (ever heard of them?) meet _privately_ on a yearly basis to discuss all manner of world issues.  Such meetings set the backdrop against which policy in the EU and elsewhere is framed.  Little or nothing is ever reported in the Press.

Anyway that's an aside, the matter at hand is whether we want to change our constitution allowing for the ratification of the Lisbon treaty and agreeing that our constitution can not prevent any laws, acts or measures being put into force if they are necessitated by our membership of the new EU, even if they would otherwise be deemed by our Supreme Court to be unconstitutional.


----------



## pinkyBear

Was anyone listening to Newstalk this am, there was an "independant" european correspondant discussing the referendum and that the EU officials are surprised that the No campaign is really making headway, he was saying that if a No vote won that there was a feeling that we could have to leave the EU....!!!!


----------



## television

michaelm said:


> Anyway that's an aside, the matter at hand is whether we want to change our constitution allowing for the ratification of the Lisbon treaty and agreeing that our constitution can not prevent any laws, acts or measures being put into force if they are necessitated by our membership of the new EU, even if they would otherwise be deemed by our Supreme Court to be unconstitutional.


 
Aggreed and a fair point.


----------



## television

csirl said:


> There isnt a small bunch of Mr. Burns style evil people who own most multinationals and meet regularly to decide how to screw ordinary people.


 
Perhaps not but we do have 



And im sure mr burns is in the american version. Or maybe the CEO of Enron


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

television said:


> Explain please?


 TV you keep talking about _privitisation_, it is _privatisation_.  Just a bit of education.


----------



## television

> TV you keep talking about _privitisation_, it is _privatisation_. Just a bit of education.


 
This is a debate about the lisbon treaty why do you insist on being personal? 



> Just a bit of education


 
By the way with grammer like above I dont think your in any position to give anyone "a bit of education" on the English Languege.


----------



## davfran

What are the odds down the line that our children could be drafted into the european super power army?


----------



## cole

pinkyBear said:


> Was anyone listening to Newstalk this am, there was an "independant" european correspondant discussing the referendum and that the EU officials are surprised that the No campaign is really making headway, he was saying that if a No vote won that there was a feeling that we could have to leave the EU....!!!!


 
Which brings us nicely onto... is fear now the no 1 tool to win elections?


----------



## ashambles

Well if this thread has taught us anything at all, it's what our self-professed specialists in the field of education do to fill in the long,lazy summer months. 

(And it's not practising spelling.)


----------



## pinkyBear

Hi - I guess I am quoting what I heard - he was introduced as an independant comentator - and to be honest I have found the Lisbon debate on Newstalk fair..


----------



## television

ashambles said:


> Well if this thread has taught us anything at all, it's what our self-professed specialists in the field of education do to fill in the long,lazy summer months.
> 
> (And it's not practising spelling.)


 

Lets stick to the debate not try insulting people.



> self-professed specialists


 
If you are a doctor you call yourself a doctor. if you are a teacher you are in education etc.


----------



## Caveat

davfran said:


> What are the odds down the line that our children could be drafted into the european super power army?


 
Very slim indeed I'd say.


----------



## rmelly

sent to Russia to protect U.S.E. oil or gas supplies...


----------



## redstar

pinkyBear said:


> Was anyone listening to Newstalk this am, there was an "independant" european correspondant discussing the referendum and that the EU officials are surprised that the No campaign is really making headway, he was saying that if a No vote won that there was a feeling that we could have to leave the EU....!!!!



Hmmm, don't remember France or Holland being asked to leave the EU after their NO to the original version of the constitution.


----------



## ubiquitous

Interesting perspectives from the Wikipedia pages dealing with the French & Dutch referenda in 2005 on the EU Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_referendum_on_the_European_Constitution



> The possible consequences of a "No" vote were highly debated in France before the referendum, and are now a matter of keen speculation across Europe. Proponents of the Constitution, including President Chirac, have claimed that France's standing in Europe has been considerably weakened.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_European_Constitution_referendum,_2005


> As the referendum approached, many "Yes" campaigners began to predict defeat, and some even expressed relief after the French rejection of the treaty, taking the view that this would prevent the Netherlands from being the first or only country to obstruct the course of ratification, even though they also expressed dismay that the French result had given the "No" campaign greater legitimacy and acceptance, and had suggested to the public that the Netherlands' standing in Europe would not be significantly damaged by a "No" vote, with some going as far as saying that the Netherlands would look like a fool in front of the rest of Europe.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

television said:


> This is a debate about the lisbon treaty why do you insist on being personal?


You had asked me to explain an earlier correction to your spelling. Nothing personal intended. Chill out a bit, TV

BTW, panic is over, PaddyPower is betting 7/2 on a Yes vote.


----------



## elefantfresh

Questions and Answers last night - i'm even more confused after watching that. How can elected politicans have absolute, total disagreement over a document? I understand that people can have a difference in opinion, but this is a document that has been written for all to read (whatever about a difficult read).
How can one side say it will NOT affect the corporate tax and the other say that it WILL. 
I'm lost.


----------



## Sunny

I was going to vote yes but after the French Foreign Ministers threats and the Governments reluctance to tell him to keep his mouth shut, I am thinking of changing my mind. Childish I know!! Whether this gets passed or not, I am grateful for the chance to have a say in the matter. I can't understand why there isn't more uproar in Europe over not having the same opportunity. I see some guy in the UK is trying to presuade the High Court that there should be a judicial review into the decision not to hold a referendum. Interesting to see how that goes.


----------



## Nemesis

Are people seriously suggesting we could have referenda in 27 countries and not run into problems where the population just voted out of sheer bloody-mindedness to give their government a kicking for reasons not to do with the issue in question? Or for some other particular reason peculiar to that country? If that's the only way we could proceed we might as well scrap the idea of the EU altogether. Just what is wrong with representative democracy and ratification through parliament? Referenda for EU treaties in a union of less than 10 states might be manageable but 27 and rising just wouldn't work.


----------



## Purple

csirl said:


> What is "big business"? You give the impression that there is a madcap "stonecutters" conspiracy out there.
> 
> Behind what you call "big business" are people - employees earning a living and shareholders, many of whom are ordinary people or pension funds paying ordinary retired people. There isnt a small bunch of Mr. Burns style evil people who own most multinationals and meet regularly to decide how to screw ordinary people.



Agreed.



csirl said:


> Though, one thing did strike me concerning the Yes side argument that multinationals are in favour of a Yes vote. The argument being made by the Yes side is that because Irish based multinationals are in favour, then the EU-wide corporation tax must not be on the horizon. This may not be correct. The multinationals could be in favour of a Yes vote and EU-wide corporation tax. The reason being that at the moment, Ireland is the only show in town for multinationals. If they want an advantage in trading in the EU, they have to be based in Ireland - if they are based elsewhere, they put themselves at a disadvantage vis a vis competitors who are based in Ireland. However, if there is an EU wide corporation tax, then this advantage/disadvantage of locating or not locating in Ireland is neutralised. They can locate where ever they want. It enables them to chose a location that is closer to the bulk of their customers than Ireland or one where the workforce or raw materials are more readily available. Ireland loses out big time in this scenario. The counter argument to this is that they will make less profits if they have to pay higher corporation tax. Not true, they can simply jack up prices to compensate for the higher taxes. With an EU wide corporation tax, they cannot be undercut by a competitor with a lower tax rate and due to the EUs closed market, they cannot be undercut by non-EU based companies. The vast majority of big companies would prefer to be judged in the market place solely by the quality and price of their goods and services with tax rates being a non issue.



Many EU countries have lower corporation tax than us. The notion that the EU will gang up on us and we will have to fight them all by ourselves is laughable.


----------



## Sunny

Nemesis said:


> Are people seriously suggesting we could have referenda in 27 countries and not run into problems where the population just voted out of sheer bloody-mindedness to give their government a kicking for reasons not to do with the issue in question? Or for some other particular reason peculiar to that country? If that's the only way we could proceed we might as well scrap the idea of the EU altogether. Just what is wrong with representative democracy and ratification through parliament? Referenda for EU treaties in a union of less than 10 states might be manageable but 27 and rising just wouldn't work.


 
The point is that the Frech and Dutch Government gave their people the chance to vote on the EU Constitution. The UK government promised one. They didn't get the vote the they wanted so they came up with this treaty which as everyone accepts is the constitution with a bit of window dressing and suddenly the rights of these people to vote on the same issues is gone. Thats not democratic. At least we get to vote. If I was a French or Dutch voter, I would be vey annoyed that the right that was afforded to me previously is now taken away from me.


----------



## Caveat

BTW, as an aside, like with the general election and with the last referendum, guess who was the only party to call to my door? 

Yep, Sinn Fein.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> Maybe not.  But the Bilderberg group - bankers, politicians, Presidents, media moguls, etc - (ever heard of them?) meet _privately_ on a yearly basis to discuss all manner of world issues.  Such meetings set the backdrop against which policy in the EU and elsewhere is framed.  Little or nothing is ever reported in the Press.


Except the Wiki page,   on Google and what invited journalists say...



michaelm said:


> Anyway that's an aside, the matter at hand is whether we want to change our constitution allowing for the ratification of the Lisbon treaty and agreeing that our constitution can not prevent any laws, acts or measures being put into force if they are necessitated by our membership of the new EU, even if they would otherwise be deemed by our Supreme Court to be unconstitutional.


This is incorrect. I suspect that you know it too.


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> The point is that the Frech and Dutch Government gave their people the chance to vote on the EU Constitution. The UK government promised one. They didn't get the vote the they wanted so they came up with this treaty which as everyone accepts is the constitution with a bit of window dressing and suddenly the rights of these people to vote on the same issues is gone. Thats not democratic. At least we get to vote. If I was a French or Dutch voter, I would be vey annoyed that the right that was afforded to me previously is now taken away from me.



In the UK the Queen (or King) in parliament is sovereign and so a referendum would have no legal status, it would merely be a political cop-out by the elected leaders of the country. The same is the case in most EU countries. Once elected representatives make a decision it is democratic. To suggest that those countries that do not have a constitutional requirement to have referenda are somehow undemocratic is nonsense. Do you think we should have a national vote on every piece of legislation that is voted on in the Dail?


----------



## Sunny

Purple said:


> In the UK the Queen (or King) in parliament is sovereign and so a referendum would have no legal status, it would merely be a political cop-out by the elected leaders of the country. The same is the case in most EU countries. Once elected representatives make a decision it is democratic. To suggest that those countries that do not have a constitutional requirement to have referenda are somehow undemocratic is nonsense. Do you think we should have a national vote on every piece of legislation that is voted on in the Dail?


 
Never said it was a constitutional requirement for them to have a refernendum. The point remains that the EU constitution was put to a referendum in those Countries because it was seeing as fundamentally changing the way Europe operates and there was serious concern about it. This treaty is exactly the same but because they voted no the previous time, they decided to call the constitution a treaty and take away the referendum. All I am saying is that if I was a Dutch or French voter who rejected the constitution, I would be very annoyed at not having the right to vote on this treaty.


----------



## redstar

Purple said:


> Do you think we should have a national vote on every piece of legislation that is voted on in the Dail?



Exactly. Imagine if we had a referendum on increasing income tax. It would probably be rejected, but should that mean income tax cannot be increased by the elected Govt of the day ?


----------



## Nemesis

Sunny said:


> Never said it was a constitutional requirement for them to have a refernendum. The point remains that the EU constitution was put to a referendum in those Countries because it was seeing as fundamentally changing the way Europe operates and there was serious concern about it. This treaty is exactly the same but because they voted no the previous time, they decided to call the constitution a treaty and take away the referendum. All I am saying is that if I was a Dutch or French voter who rejected the constitution, I would be very annoyed at not having the right to vote on this treaty.



Ok, I can understand that French and Dutch voters might feel annoyed. But we must keep things in perspective. They are not living in dictatorships. I'm sure the people of Zimbabwe would love to have something like that to be annoyed about instead of the problems they have. If French and Dutch voters feel so strongly about this issue then let them organise politically and do something about it. I don't see people on the streets in large numbers protesting and I don't recall it figuring as a key issue in the last French presidential and parliamentary elections.


----------



## michaelm

Purple said:


> Except the Wiki page,   on Google and what invited journalists say...


Maybe it's only a book club but I'm not entirely happy that some of our elected representatives attend such secretive, if not secret, meetings.





Purple said:


> This is incorrect. I suspect that you know it too.


Steady now, you may have a different opinion but I am honest above all else.  The Referendum Commission leaflet(separate from the booklet) posted to all voters detailing the proposed 28th Amendment to our Constitution, the wording of which won't appear on the ballot, clearly states . . .

10: The State may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community,  signed at Lisbon on the 13th day of December 2007, and  may be a member of the European Union established by virtue of that Treaty. 

 11:   No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 10 of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred  to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.

Perhaps you haven't haven't seen the proposed amendment or maybe you have a different interpretation, although I can't see any other way to interpret it, but please don't accuse me of deceit.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> 11:   No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 10 of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred  to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.



In other words the "laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 10 of this section" are constitutional and given that they are constitutional laws passed at EU level are binding in Ireland. The EU cannot pass laws in certain areas and can pass them in other areas. This is, in effect, just as it has been for years.
This is not a vote for a federal EU. If it was I would still say yes but it ‘aint.

Inference that you were/could be dishonest withdrawn with my apologies.


----------



## csirl

> Many EU countries have lower corporation tax than us. The notion that the EU will gang up on us and we will have to fight them all by ourselves is laughable.


 
I agree it wont be us alone - there are a few eastern European states with low corporation taxes. I do think that it could be the bigger countries versus the samller ones with the bigger countries having most muscle.

The way I think it will happen, and this will be allowed under Lisbon, is through "enhanced cooperation". Here's a scenario. France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands & Luxembourg agree to enhanced cooperation in the area of corporate taxation effectively setting up a single corporation tax zone covering their collective territories. They all agree on a common corporation tax of e.g. 30% to apply in their countries. They then collectively invoke the distortion of free market provisions to justify additional VAT to apply on any goods or services imported into their countries from EU countries with lower corporation tax. The effect of this would be to make products and services from Ireland much dearer in those countries, who have of the bulk of EU wealth. 

As enhanced cooperation is allowed and countries are free to set their own corporation taxes and VAT rates, then the EU cannot prevent them from doing this. It does not force us to change our corporation tax rate either, but would have the effect of forcing us to change to their rate to be able to effectively trade in those countries.


----------



## redstar

Enhanced cooperation was introduced in the Amsterdam/Nice and Lisbon Treaties.

Enhanced cooperation can happen whether or not Lisbon is ratified AND if ...



> "The Commission backs the idea, and the other governments agree, and it is supported by the European Parliament."



(Full article about Enhanced cooperation at  http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0411/corporationtax.html )


----------



## michaelm

Purple said:


> In other words the "laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 10 of this section" are constitutional and given that they are constitutional laws passed at EU level are binding in Ireland.


Well, I think we're in agreement, the amendment will allow the Irish government to, on foot of instruction from the EU, enact laws, commit acts and adopt measures that would, in the absence of the amendment, be unconstitutional.  It says that nothing in our constitution cannot prevent the imposition of EU law here.  Whether one is for or against this amendment I think people should read the actual amendment they are to vote on.


----------



## csirl

> Whether one is for or against this amendment I think people should read the actual amendment they are to vote on.


 
Fully agree.

With this particular amendment, it means that we may have to adopt unconstitutional conditions of membership of the EU which dont currently exist, but may exist in the future. Even stuff that isnt currently on the radar.

Ireland has quite a unique sovereignty set-up. This is one of the reasons we alone are having a referendum. It is not comparible with anything else in the EU. In lay mans terms, each Irish citizen is an equal and absolute Sovereign (i.e. King/Queen of Ireland) with a devine right to rule as Sovereign - a bit like when the UK had King William & Queen Mary as joint monarchs instead that we have 4 million equal instead of 2 equal. Our President is a Sovereigns representative with power of attorney to perform Sovereigns admin tasks. In most EU countries, the President is a full Sovereign who is elected and the people have no sovereign rights. In monarchies such as UK, Netherlands, the King/Queen alone is the Sovereign and the people are subjects of the Sovereign. This all may seem a bit strange, but it does have fundamental effects on personal rights. This treaty could change or relationship with the EU as a Sovereign to non-sovereign body - the Sovereign always has primacy in any dealings to one where our Sovereignty rights are extinguished in all dealings with the EU and we are dealing with them as equals as opposed to having primacy.

Example of where personal rights may be affected. A Sovereign has an absolute right to sue any other entity INCLUDING another Sovereign in the event of personal injury (in legal terms rather than someone getting injured). A non-Sovereign does not have an absolute right to sue - must be provided in law with the consent of the Sovereign. We may be restricting the rights of our citizens to sue the EU by agreeing to this treaty.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

The No posters are better. I like the one with monkeys on it but the one telling us not to vote for another turkey is clever IMHO.


----------



## redstar

csirl said:


> Fully agree.
> 
> With this particular amendment, it means that we may have to adopt unconstitutional conditions of membership of the EU which dont currently exist, but may exist in the future. Even stuff that isnt currently on the radar.



The Constitution _*already has this wording*_ (Art 29.4) ...
10° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by
the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the
Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or
by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties
establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State

Read the amendment in context with the rest of the wording ... http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/ReferendumWordingEnglish.pdf


> 10° The State may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the
> Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon on the 13th day of December 2007,
> and may be a member of the European Union established by virtue of
> that Treaty.
> (This allows for the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon)
> 11° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by
> the State that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union referred to
> in subsection 10° of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the
> said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to
> in this section, from having the force of law in the State.
> (This is similar to the existing subsection 10° and allows for the provisions of the Treaty of
> Lisbon to be put into effect in Ireland)
> 12° The State may exercise the options or discretions provided by or under Articles 1.22, 2.64,
> 2.65, 2.66, 2.67, 2.68 and 2.278 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 10° of this section and
> Articles 1.18 and 1.20 of Protocol No. 1 annexed to that Treaty, but any such exercise shall be
> subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.
> (This allows Ireland to opt-in or opt-out of various provisions in relation to The Area of
> Freedom, Security and Justice and enhanced co-operation subject to the prior approval of the
> Oireachtas – that is the Dail and Seanad).
> 13° The State may exercise the option to secure that the Protocol on the position of the United
> Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice annexed to the Treaty on
> European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly known as the
> Treaty establishing the European Community) shall, in whole or in part, cease to apply to the State,
> but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.
> (The Protocol mentioned here is the one which allows Ireland to opt out of the Area of Freedom,
> Security and Justice. This clause would allow Ireland to withdraw from the opt-out. The
> government has made a declaration which is attached to the Treaty of Lisbon that it will examine
> this opt-out within 3 years – declarations are not legally binding)


----------



## GeneralZod

television said:


> This is my opinion based on my reading of relivent section of the treaty. I am not parroting anyone but making an analysis based on my reading and on the kind of big business forces that are very influencial around the corridors of power in Europe who ensure such wording to stregthen the possition.



This looks like your own "analysis". The previous stuff on Article 188 (which bore no relation to what's in the treaty) was straight off the Sinn Fein website.

Articles 23 - 27 concern diplomatic protection, qualified majority voting in the council, citizens rights (petition, Ombudsman, languages), and the shared competence of the Internal Market. Somehow from this ragbag you're drawing conclusions that don't bear any relation to what's in the Treaty.


----------



## television

> This looks like your own "analysis". The previous stuff on Article 188 (which bore no relation to what's in the treaty) was straight off the Sinn Fein website.


 


> The previous stuff on Article 188 (which bore no relation to what's in the treaty) was straight off the Sinn Fein website.


  And I absolutly reject your claim. 

I have sought to give an analysis based on my reading of the treaty. If it is similar analysis to Sinn Fein so it be. 

It is my own analysis. Make of it what you will.

And as for the Sinn Fein point. I despise their hypocracy on a lot of issues. i have never voted for them and never will.


----------



## starlite68

if we vote no to this treaty,a few in the EU may be a bit miffed for a while...but in a few months the will have to come back to us and re negotiate a more favourable deal. thats how these things usually work. the thing to remember is we are in the driveing seat here.....so lets not sell ourselves short


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

starlite68 said:


> if we vote no to this treaty,a few in the EU may be a bit miffed for a while...but in a few months the will have to come back to us and re negotiate a more favourable deal. thats how these things usually work. the thing to remember is we are in the driveing seat here.....so lets not sell ourselves short


 
And we can reject it a second time to get even better etc. etc.  The problem is we can overplay that card and IMHO we have reached the end of the tether having already rejected Nice.


----------



## dazza21ie

starlite68 said:


> if we vote no to this treaty,a few in the EU may be a bit miffed for a while...but in a few months the will have to come back to us and re negotiate a more favourable deal. thats how these things usually work. the thing to remember is we are in the driveing seat here.....so lets not sell ourselves short


 
Why do people (from the no side) presume we will get a better deal if we vote no. It took along time for the current treaty to be agreed. There are 27 countries in the EU. That is alot of different opinions to satisfy. We are not the only small country in the EU. We consistently punch above our weight in my opinion. We are not the only country going to lose a commissioner (everyone will at some stage). European law is already superior to Irish law. The No side seem to be trying to not only renegotiate this treaty but also previous treaties.


----------



## television

> And we can reject it a second time to get even better etc. etc. The problem is we can overplay that card and IMHO we have reached the end of the tether having already rejected Nice.


 
EU will continue to function if we vote no. All this talk of crisis is Scaremongering.

however there will be a yes vote. A bit like the general election where it looked bad for fianna fail and then peoples opinions turned late on. 
.


----------



## dazza21ie

television said:


> EU will continue to function if we vote no. All this talk of crisis is Scaremongering.
> .


 
It will continue to work but the whole point of the lisbon treaty is to improve the EU as a whole.


----------



## television

Articles 23 - 27 concern diplomatic protection, qualified majority voting in the council, citizens rights (petition, Ombudsman, languages), and the shared competence of the Internal Market. Somehow from this ragbag you're drawing conclusions that don't bear any relation to what's in the Treaty.[/quote]

  I have not refered to these articles I was refering to article 188.


----------



## television

> Articles 23 - 27 Concern Diplomatic Protection, Qualified Majority Voting In The Council, Citizens Rights (petition, Ombudsman, Languages), And The Shared Competence Of The Internal Market. Somehow From This Ragbag You're Drawing Conclusions That Don't Bear Any Relation To What's In The Treaty.


 
I think i was refering to 188. But if you actually read my thoughts on this i think I have a point. your free to disagree


----------



## GeneralZod

Hasty repost there as you realised you did actually refer to them (posts 427 & 429) 

Please give me the ladybird version of your thoughts because I'm having great difficulty following it.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Best No poster of them all is that one with a picture of Enda Kenny.


----------



## Brianne

Mary Lou is worried about our Corporation Tax!!!!
Yeah, I 'm sure she is. Having read the literature and listened to them all, I'm Yes. 
Also if Sinn Fein say NO, for me that 's the best reason in the world to say YES, YES and YES!!!!
Can't accuse me of being coy!!!


----------



## room305

television said:


> No, Not if the government is idelogically bend on introducing privitisation (as is the case with Mary Harney) . If this is the case then this section of the treaty actually gives them room within the euroepan project to do that.


 
So what your saying is that if the Irish people _democratically_ elect a government with a mandate to privatise health and education services then there is nothing in this treaty to prevent exactly that from happening? Well put the kids in the basement and load the shotgun Ma, society may very well be on the verge of collapse.

What you are asking for (the means to prevent citizens from electing a government with a mandate to privatise health and education services) is more profoundly undemocratic than the treaty you proport to be against.

I suggest a move to Burma where you will find the political structure more to your liking.


----------



## television

> What you are asking for (the means to prevent citizens from electing a government with a mandate to privatise health and education services) is more profoundly undemocratic than the treaty you proport to be against.


1. I am not asking for that. The rest of your argument does not work.

2. I actually aggree with you here. In that yes people have a right to vote for harney or anyone else that advocates privatisation.  any yes if they do then she/whatever party has a mandate for privatisation. However I am of the opinion that privatising services such as health and education is a very negative step.  And i would suggest that the kicking that the PDs got in the last election that the irish people do not have the apetite for privatisation. then again I'm not claiming to speak for the Irish people


----------



## television

GeneralZod said:


> Hasty repost there as you realised you did actually refer to them (posts 427 & 429)
> 
> Please give me the ladybird version of your thoughts because I'm having great difficulty following it.


 

If you actually care to read the full text of what I quote you would see that the article I am quoting is refering to the articles you quote but it is not those articles. Please, before you go on a know it all rant and start speaking of ladybirds be careful to actually read the articles I am quoting rather than glancing at numbers and then feeling smug. perhaps your right in that you do need the lady bird version


----------



## television

dazza21ie said:


> It will continue to work but the whole point of the lisbon treaty is to improve the EU as a whole.


 
And thats the whole point of this debate.


----------



## television

GeneralZod said:


> Hasty repost there as you realised you did actually refer to them (posts 427 & 429)
> 
> Please give me the ladybird version of your thoughts because I'm having great difficulty following it.


 

157) An Article 188 B shall be inserted, with the wording of Article 131; it shall be amended as
follows:
(a) the first paragraph shall be replaced by the following:
"By establishing a customs union in accordance with Articles 23 to 27, the Union shall contribute, in the common interest, to the harmonious development of world trade, the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade and on foreign direct investment, and the lowering of customs and other barriers.";

Is this clear enough for you or are you going to try and wrangle your way out of it.​


----------



## shanegl

television, I believe this is the button you're looking for:


----------



## Bluebells

redstar said:


> The Constitution _*already has this wording*_ (Art 29.4) ...
> 10° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by
> the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the
> Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or
> by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties
> establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State
> 
> Read the amendment in context with the rest of the wording ... http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/ReferendumWordingEnglish.pdf



Actually it doesn't " already have this wording "

If you read carefully, the word "Communities " has been deleted in the proposed amendment. What was the matter with that particular word that it had to be removed?


----------



## redstar

Just to clarify, the current unamended Irish Constitution art 29.4.10  has this wording...

_10° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by
the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the
Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or
by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties
establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State._

The proposed amendment drops the words 'by the Communities' to allow formal membership of the 'European Union', and artl 29.4.10 becomes artl 29.4.11. No need for the word 'Communities', as it will be dropped in favour of  the term 'Union'.
The main thrust of the wording remains the same as now, pre-Lisbon 
ie  _No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted .... which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union ... from having the force of law in the State_

Voting No to Lisbon will not change this part.


----------



## redstar

Mods,

Does the moratorium on Lisbon discussion apply to this thread ? Just saw in the Irish Times that they are not publishing any letters today regarding the Lisbon Referendum because of the moratorium.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> Well, I think we're in agreement, the amendment will allow the Irish government to, on foot of instruction from the EU, enact laws, commit acts and adopt measures that would, in the absence of the amendment, be unconstitutional.  It says that nothing in our constitution cannot prevent the imposition of EU law here.  Whether one is for or against this amendment I think people should read the actual amendment they are to vote on.


You misunderstand what I am saying. My reading of the section is that the treaty is constitutional and the laws etc enacted in Ireland as a result of the treaty are constitutional. It does not say that the treaty supersedes the constitution; it says that the treaty and the laws which flow from it are within the bounds of the constitution. It is not legally sound to pass an amendment which allows other changes to the constitution without a referendum therefore such an amendment would not pass scrutiny by the Supreme Court.


----------



## Sunny

redstar said:


> Mods,
> 
> Does the moratorium on Lisbon discussion apply to this thread ? Just saw in the Irish Times that they are not publishing any letters today regarding the Lisbon Referendum because of the moratorium.


 
That would be a bit harsh. Unless the mods start deleting all the posts from one side of the argument, I can't see any harm in continuing a balanced discussion. Its interesting to see the different viewpoints and interpretations on the same thing!


----------



## michaelm

dazza21ie said:


> Why do people (from the no side) presume we will get a better deal if we vote no.


IMHO Nice is a better deal than Lisbon.





Purple said:


> You misunderstand what I am saying.


Yes, I think I did.  I think we have a different interpretation of the same thing.  I think the end result is the same.





redstar said:


> Does the moratorium on Lisbon discussion apply to this thread ?


The moratorium only applies to broadcast media and is voluntary.





elefantfresh said:


> How can one side say it will NOT affect the corporate tax and the other say that it WILL.


The problem with the veto on Corporation Tax is that once it's gone it's gone.  If tax was really a sovereign matter, as Brian Cowen suggests, and the EU really had no intention to harmonise same, they would put a line in the treaty to the effect that 'The EU has NO competency in relation to tax'.  I wouldn't be surprised to see, in the very near future, a compromise where Ireland and others with low CT rates agree a new minimum rate of 20% in order to stave off harmonisation or Enhanced Cooperation.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> The problem with the veto on Corporation Tax is that once it's gone it's gone.  If tax was really a sovereign matter, as Brian Cowen suggests, and the EU really had no intention to harmonise same, they would put a line in the treaty to the effect that 'The EU has NO competency in relation to tax'.  I wouldn't be surprised to see, in the very near future, a compromise where Ireland and others with low CT rates agree a new minimum rate of 20% in order to stave off harmonisation or Enhanced Cooperation.




Do you agree that Lisbon has no bearing on this matter one way or the other.
I posted quite a long post in the Great financial debate section about this a few weeks back.


----------



## redstar

michaelm said:


> I think the end result is the same.The moratorium only applies to broadcast media and is voluntary.


Great, thanks , michaelm - I wasn't sure about that.



> The problem with the veto on Corporation Tax is that once it's gone it's gone.  If tax was really a sovereign matter, as Brian Cowen suggests, and the EU really had no intention to harmonise same, they would put a line in the treaty to the effect that 'The EU has NO competency in relation to tax'.  I wouldn't be surprised to see, in the very near future, a compromise where Ireland and others with low CT rates agree a new minimum rate of 20% in order to stave off harmonisation or Enhanced Cooperation.



What you say here about Corp Tax is true with or without the Lisbon Treaty. Voting No won't change any moves towards Enhanced Cooperation by those countries who want to do it.


----------



## michaelm

Purple said:


> Do you agree that Lisbon has no bearing on this [CT] matter one way or the other.


Yes, to the degree that our veto on CT remains however I'm not convinced that the ECJ won't rule our CT rate to be a distortion of the market as set out under Lisbon, or that some other mechanism hidden in the unreadable detail of Lisbon will be employed.  Nor am I at all convinced that our veto will protect our CT rate in the medium term.   IMHO, If we reject Lisbon and the EU political classes really want it passed then the opportunity arises to have tax explicitly referred to in the treaty as a sovereign matter for National governments only.  Would you not agree that that is more desirable than a veto that, if unused under pressure or traded in a compromise deal, would be gone forever?  If harmonisation is not an EU goal then there should be no problem agreeing that.

Following a NO our government (who work for us ) should also seek to have a, Davey Byrne promised pre-Nice, arrangement in relation to Commissioners whereby we were assured we'd have a Commissioner for the next 130 years.

I'd also like to see them opt out of the charter just like Poland and the UK (no problem securing that) so that the arbiter on rights for Irish citizens would continue to be the Irish Supreme Court rather than the European Court of Justice.  As FF, FG & Lab seem to agree that the charter is such a prize, let them then implement it under Irish law.


----------



## television

> Yes, to the degree that our veto on CT remains however I'm not convinced that the ECJ won't rule our CT rate to be a distortion of the market as set out under Lisbon


 
Excellent point that applies to other areas also.


----------



## shanegl

michaelm said:


> Yes, to the degree that our veto on CT remains however I'm not convinced that the ECJ won't rule our CT rate to be a distortion of the market as set out under Lisbon, or that some other mechanism hidden in the unreadable detail of Lisbon will be employed. Nor am I at all convinced that our veto will protect our CT rate in the medium term. IMHO, If we reject Lisbon and the EU political classes really want it passed then the opportunity arises to have tax explicitly referred to in the treaty as a sovereign matter for National governments only. Would you not agree that that is more desirable than a veto that, if unused under pressure or traded in a compromise deal, would be gone forever? If harmonisation is not an EU goal then there should be no problem agreeing that.
> 
> Following a NO our government (who work for us ) should also seek to have a, Davey Byrne promised pre-Nice, arrangement in relation to Commissioners whereby we were assured we'd have a Commissioner for the next 130 years.
> 
> I'd also like to see them opt out of the charter just like Poland and the UK (no problem securing that) so that the arbiter on rights for Irish citizens would continue to be the Irish Supreme Court rather than the European Court of Justice. As FF, FG & Lab seem to agree that the charter is such a prize, let them then implement it under Irish law.


 
I take it you wish to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights then?


----------



## csirl

Anyone think that if the Yes side wins the referendum, that a future Irish Government would have the balls to call another referendum to delete the Lisbon treaty from the Constitution?


----------



## dazza21ie

michaelm said:


> Following a NO our government (who work for us ) should also seek to have a, Davey Byrne promised pre-Nice, arrangement in relation to Commissioners whereby we were assured we'd have a Commissioner for the next 130 years.


 
The EU is going to keep expanding. At the moment there are 27 countries and this will increase to 30+ plus in the not too distant future. If we are to be assured a commissioner for the next 30 years then surely every other country would want one also. They would have to start making up mickey mouse commission jobs because there simply will be too many commissioners. It is the same as saying every constituency in ireland should have a minister. Bertie got plenty of stick for giving out jobs for the boys by having so many junior ministers. It was said that this was a waste of tax payers money. Surely having 30 or 40 Commissioners is a waste of taxpayers money.


----------



## dazza21ie

csirl said:


> Anyone think that if the Yes side wins the referendum, that a future Irish Government would have the balls to call another referendum to delete the Lisbon treaty from the Constitution?


 
Highly unlikely considering that all the political parties except Sinn Fein support the treaty. In any event the Treaty has a mechanism to leave the EU in it so if the government of the day wanted to leave the EU they would use that i would presume.


----------



## michaelm

dazza21ie said:


> The EU is going to keep expanding. At the moment there are 27 countries and this will increase to 30+ plus in the not too distant future. If we are to be assured a commissioner for the next 30 years then surely every other country would want one also. They would have to start making up mickey mouse commission jobs because there simply will be too many commissioners. It is the same as saying every constituency in ireland should have a minister. Bertie got plenty of stick for giving out jobs for the boys by having so many junior ministers. It was said that this was a waste of tax payers money. Surely having 30 or 40 Commissioners is a waste of taxpayers money.


There are plenty of other areas in which savings could be made in relation to taxpayers money in the EU.  In Ireland we have 15 Ministers and 20 Junior Ministers for a population of 4 million.  I don't think it is unreasonable to expect to retain one Commissioner per country (27+)  in a block of 500 million people.  If it becomes unwieldy and the larger states want to show that the EU isn't just a big boys club then let them give up their commissioner altogether, given the size of their vote under the new QMV rules it shouldn't be a big deal for them.  It is important for small states.


----------



## room305

television said:


> 1. I am not asking for that. The rest of your argument does not work.
> 
> 2. I actually aggree with you here. In that yes people have a right to vote for harney or anyone else that advocates privatisation. any yes if they do then she/whatever party has a mandate for privatisation. However I am of the opinion that privatising services such as health and education is a very negative step. And i would suggest that the kicking that the PDs got in the last election that the irish people do not have the apetite for privatisation. then again I'm not claiming to speak for the Irish people


 
So you agree that if citizens of an EU country democratically elect a government with a mandate to privatise health and education then they should be allowed to do so. Since this is currently the case for every EU country and will remain the case whether the referendum passes or not. Tell me again why you are so vehemently opposed to its passing?



redstar said:


> What you say here about Corp Tax is true with or without the Lisbon Treaty. Voting No won't change any moves towards Enhanced Cooperation by those countries who want to do it.


 
Indeed it will increase the likelihood of such a move occurring as we will be portrayed across the EU as an "I'm alright Jack" type of country. Happy to be one of the pack when we've got the begging bowl out for subsidies. Or when we're about boasting how we built our "miracle economy" by siphoning other states corporation tax. Yet never missing an opportunity to get the rest of the member states over a barrel if we think we can squeeze some kind of advantage out of it.

It is the future battle ground of our low corporation tax rate that swung me from an undecided no vote to a firm yes vote. We are definitely going to be attacked on this, regardless of what way the vote goes, so why start making enemies now?



michaelm said:


> Yes, to the degree that our veto on CT remains however I'm not convinced that the ECJ won't rule our CT rate to be a distortion of the market as set out under Lisbon, or that some other mechanism hidden in the unreadable detail of Lisbon will be employed.


 
Doesn't the appropriate clause in the treaty refer to _indirect_ taxes? So we can always hold out the possibility of the ECJ ruling that our VRT should be removed? 

Also I think the No side have been overstressing the complexity/unreadability issue. I can't claim any great expertise in the legal field but my brother had a read of it and said it was no more complicated and certainly a lot clearer than most of the Dail legislation that he has to deal with.


----------



## television

room305 said:


> So you agree that if citizens of an EU country democratically elect a government with a mandate to privatise health and education then they should be allowed to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> room305 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since this is currently the case for every EU country and will remain the case whether the referendum passes or not. Tell me again why you are so vehemently opposed to its passing?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HAs every EU goverment been mandated to privitise health care????? Even the tories in england will not run on a platform of private health care [broken link removed]. (second last paragraph summerises their position) And certainly the British people are pr0ud of the NHS despite its flaws. As are the sweds fins dutch danes and the french (Broadly Public systems). So your premis that ALL EU governments have been given a mandate to introduce private health care seems a little wide of the mark. I stand to be corrected if you can provide evidence
> 
> And I am not going in to the sections of the treaty that I think may allow certain countries to implement Private HC. Read my previous posts. And of course like others you are free to disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## room305

television said:


> HAs every EU goverment been mandated to privitise health care?????


 
No. That's up to their electorate. It certainly is not the case at present. I did not say that all EU governments have a mandate to privatise health care. I said that the facility is already in place (representative democracy) for citizens to elect governments with a mandate to privatise whatever the hell they damn well please.



television said:


> And I am not going in to the sections of the treaty that I think may allow certain countries to implement Private HC.


 
To recap:

1. You support the right of citizens to democratically elect governments with a mandate to privatise health care.

2. You are against any intervention by the EU that would prevent citizens from exercising this right should they choose to do so.

Statement 1. and 2. are already the case. If after the next general election in France the citizens of that country opt to elect a government with a mandate to privatise health care and education, then that government can do so irregardless of what happens with the Lisbon Treaty.

So answer my question - why are you against the Lisbon Treaty? Do you think it will lead to the privatisation of health care _against_ the will of the people (and by implication against the will of their democratically elected public representatives)? Bear in mind you have already stated you don't believe this to be the case.


----------



## television

room305 said:


> To recap:
> 
> 1. You support the right of citizens to democratically elect governments with a mandate to privatise health care.


 
Yes

2. You are against any intervention by the EU that would prevent citizens from exercising this right should they choose to do so.[/quote]




> Statement 1. and 2. are already the case. If after the next general election in France the citizens of that country opt to elect a government with a mandate to privatise health care and education, then that government can do so irregardless of what happens with the Lisbon Treaty.
> 
> So answer my question - why are you against the Lisbon Treaty? Do you think it will lead to the privatisation of health care _against_ the will of the people (and by implication against the will of their democratically elected public representatives)? Bear in mind you have already stated you don't believe this to be the case.


 

I see where you are coming from now. Yes if citizens of any country elect a party that stands on an platform adovating privitisation and that party is elected that subsequent goverment regardless of Lisbon will have a mandate to do just that, i.e. privatise health care. However Europe wide as I have outlined above I do not feel there is any votes to be gained from parties standing on a mandate of private health care. But Lisbon does provide a mechenism by which a country may be forced to allow for privitisation due the reasons I have outlined in previous posts. 

Now I know you are going to counter this by saying the governments have an ability to counter privitisation by arguing that the following clause of the treaty.




> in the field of trade in social, education and health services, where these agreements risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them.​


 
However I believe strongly that as is the case in ireland where there is little mandate to introduce further private health care this is exactly what is happening. Harney will not argue that multinational health providers 





> will seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them


​ 
Politicans in other countries too will on one hand talk about the need to maintain public health care but on the other under preasure from a very powerful private health lobby (and due to the cost of public health care) will introduce various forms of private health care by stelth. And in the long term it may well be argued in european courts by multinational for profit health care providers that they are not " 





> disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them


​ 
IN fact these companies may argue the opposite. And this in turn will open up the floodgates for privitisation. Against the will of ordinary citizens regardless of any mandate. ​ 
However I can see where you are coming from now and I understand and appreciate fully the logic of what you are saying.​


----------



## diarmuidc

michaelm said:


> Yes, to the degree that our veto on CT remains however I'm not convinced that the ECJ won't rule our CT rate to be a distortion of the market as set out under Lisbon, or that some other mechanism hidden in the unreadable detail of Lisbon will be employed.



So, even though the very people who *pay* the CT are supporting a YES vote, you believe that they are wrong and missed something in the treaty. Incredible.


----------



## michaelm

diarmuidc said:


> So, even though the very people who *pay* the CT are supporting a YES vote, you believe that they are wrong and missed something in the treaty. Incredible.


Maybe IBEC have decided that harmonisation is inevitable anyway and are attracted to Lisbon as it will do nothing to protect workers pay and conditions, which have been undermined by recent EU court judgments.


----------



## michaelm

room305 said:


> . . the facility is already in place (representative democracy) for citizens to elect governments with a mandate to privatise whatever the hell they damn well please.


But our representative democracy will have its hands tied after Lisbon, in relation to health, as no government the citizens elect will be in a position to exclude private-for-profit health providers, should they believe that a single-tier public system would serve the people best.


----------



## Caveat

So has anyone heard - is voting "brisk" as they say?

I doubt it somehow...


----------



## redstar

Caveat said:


> So has anyone heard - is voting "brisk" as they say?
> 
> I doubt it somehow...



The last I heard on t'wireless was turnout so far (10:30am) at 3%. Half the turnout at the same time in the last referendum.

My (very speculative!!) guess is a overall NO vote if the turnout is low (30 - 40%), but a narrow YES if turnout is above 45%, and a wider margin YES if turnout is around 60%.


----------



## room305

michaelm said:


> But our representative democracy will have its hands tied after Lisbon, in relation to health, as no government the citizens elect will be in a position to exclude private-for-profit health providers, should they believe that a single-tier public system would serve the people best.


 
So you are saying that after Lisbon should the GlobalHyperMegaMart Healthcare Services Corporation decide they want to build a hospital in Rathfarnham, we would be powerless to stop them? Our hands would be tied - they couldn't be thwarted on any area of planning, regulation, competition or licensing? If the HSE or SDCC say "no chance", then GlobalHyperMegaMart can invoke clause x of the Lisbon Treaty and if we still refuse they'll send in the new EU Super-Army (full of kids recently conscripted from Darndale) to quell protests?

Have the No side been reading an entirely different document to everybody else? I seem to remember these same arguments being trotted out for every single other European Treaty we signed as well.


----------



## room305

redstar said:


> The last I heard on t'wireless was turnout so far (10:30am) at 3%. Half the turnout at the same time in the last referendum.
> 
> My (very speculative!!) guess is a overall NO vote if the turnout is low (30 - 40%), but a narrow YES if turnout is above 45%, and a wider margin YES if turnout is around 60%.


 
My bet is if it rains we're screwed if it holds off then it'll hopefully scrape through.


----------



## television

michaelm said:


> But our representative democracy will have its hands tied after Lisbon, in relation to health, as no government the citizens elect will be in a position to exclude private-for-profit health providers, should they believe that a single-tier public system would serve the people best.


 

Exactly my point.


----------



## television

room305 said:


> So you are saying that after Lisbon should the GlobalHyperMegaMart Healthcare Services Corporation decide they want to build a hospital in Rathfarnham, we would be powerless to stop them? Our hands would be tied - they couldn't be thwarted on any area of planning, regulation, competition or licensing? If the HSE or SDCC say "no chance", then GlobalHyperMegaMart can invoke clause x of the Lisbon Treaty


 
I realise you are being a little flippant here but essentially you have got it. And again there are global health provision corporations out there who would try to do exactly that. 



room305 said:


> and if we still refuse they'll send in the new EU Super-Army (full of kids recently conscripted from Darndale) to quell protests?


 
No they will use the european court of justice. for instance they may argue that goverment funding of health services amounts to unfair competition within the health market. 





room305 said:


> Have the No side been reading an entirely different document to everybody else?


 
Reading/analysing the ammended treaty is a matter of interpretation. 



room305 said:


> I seem to remember these same arguments being trotted out for every single other European Treaty we signed as well.


 
These same arguments? If you mean the potential for privatisation of health and education I dont remember that being an issue with nice or masstrict.


----------



## efm

television said:


> And again there are global health provision corporations out there who would do exactly that.


 
Maybe I'm being dense here but how does the fact that a private company can open a hospital in Ireland prevent the government from continuing to run the HSE and provide a public hospital service?

In fact you can replace "hospital" with any product or service ie school, bus, fire brigade, etc.

Allowing (or as you might put it, not being able to stop) private companies to operate a service in this state doesn't automatically mean that the government should or would immediately walk away from providing a similar service on a non-profit basis.


----------



## television

efm said:


> Allowing (or as you might put it, not being able to stop) private companies to operate a service in this state doesn't automatically mean that the government should or would immediately walk away from providing a similar service on a non-profit basis.


 
but it can be argued by these companies that goverment interference in the health sector amounts to unfair competition.


----------



## efm

television said:


> but it can be argued by these companies that goverment interference in the health sector amounts to unfair competition.


 
I don't think it can and I think you are making a huge leap of conjecture by trying to tie a Yes to Lisbon with the eventual complete privatisation of Ireland's Health Service (assuming that this isn't what Ireland's elected government wants in the first place).


----------



## Purple

efm said:


> I don't think it can and I think you are making a huge leap of conjecture by trying to tie a Yes to Lisbon with the eventual complete privatisation of Ireland's Health Service (assuming that this isn't what Ireland's elected government wants in the first place).



I agree completely. The notion is ridiculous.
Every country in the EU already has private healthcare.
Given that so many of them are so proud of their socialised system (UK, France etc as listed above) it is nonsense to think that they would agree a treaty that would threaten said systems.


----------



## television

Purple said:


> I agree completely. The notion is ridiculous.
> Every country in the EU already has private healthcare.
> Given that so many of them are so proud of their socialised system (UK, France etc as listed above) it is nonsense to think that they would agree a treaty that would threaten said systems.


 
This is going around in circles now. We will just have to aggree to differ. I am not sayign that over night all european health care will be privatised. What i am saying is that a combination of factors are making this likely.

1. An inability of european governments to pay for the hugh costs associated with modern health care.
2. a powerful european for profit health lobby who advocate for private health care on the one hand and on the other try to undermine public health care systems by pointing to their inefficiencies (real or imaginary)
3. A move to the right politially in european countries.
4. A increase in the middle classes in Europe who are will be convinced of the merits of privitisation because they will always be able to afford it.
5. The lisbon treaty that facilitates the conditions to make it legally possible.


----------



## Purple

television said:


> 5. The lisbon treaty that facilitates the conditions to make it legally possible.



It has been pointed out that these conditions are there at the moment and the Lisbon treaty changes nothing in this area. In other words governments regulate and control their own health systems and decide how services are delivered.
Points 1-4 make a strong argument against a public health system, or a least show that massive reform is required.


----------



## Sunny

Got my hair cut at luchtime. Girl who did it was telling she was voting no because she didn't want her son fighting for Europe in Iraq!!  How did it come to this?


----------



## redstar

Sunny said:


> Got my hair cut at luchtime. Girl who did it was telling she was voting no because she didn't want her son fighting for Europe in Iraq!!  How did it come to this?



Illustrates effective scare tactics by the NO camp compared to tame, woolly YES campaign attempts to convince people.

"Tell a lie big enough and it'll be believed"


----------



## Ceist Beag

Sunny said:


> Got my hair cut at luchtime. Girl who did it was telling she was voting no because she didn't want her son fighting for Europe in Iraq!!  How did it come to this?



Just proves the point that this was a referendum that should not have been put to the people!!


----------



## efm

redstar said:


> Illustrates effective scare tactics by the NO camp compared to tame, woolly YES campaign attempts to convince people.


 
I agree, and to be fair, aside from the fact that I don't agree with what they are saying, I think the NO camp ran a very clever campaign. I think whoever masterminded the campaign should be poached by the YES camp for the next time!

I think it was very effective for the NO vote to list the key negatives and say "NO" to them while the YES camp couldn't easily list the benefits for Ireland.

Also, the slogan, "Europe has been good to us, let's keep it that way, Vote No" (or something similar) was a stroke of genius in my eyes; incorrect but genius nonetheless.


----------



## redstar

Ceist Beag said:


> Just proves the point that this was a referendum that should not have been put to the people!!



Have to agree there. Unless there is 100% turnout, the vote will be YES or NO based on a minority of the Irish electorate. The future direction of EU will depend on a minority of the Irish Electorate. Who says the Irish don't have any power in the EU, eh !!?

Its the same with most referenda which have many complex issues which are wide open to misinterpretation by all sides - and then boil it down to a a simple YES or NO, and then have to depend on whether or not anyone is interested enough to go and vote, and the weather !


----------



## Staples

efm said:


> the YES camp couldn't easily list the benefits for Ireland.


 
That's really at the heart of it.  If there are benefits they should have been clearly articulated.  Instead we had the "trust us, we know what's right for you" message.

In the absence of reasons to vote yes, is it any wonder that people will vote to retain the status quo?


----------



## Purple

Ceist Beag said:


> Just proves the point that this was a referendum that should not have been put to the people!!


I agree 100%


----------



## room305

Staples said:


> In the absence of reasons to vote yes, is it any wonder that people will vote to retain the status quo?


 
The problem with the Yes side campaign is that they have not highlighted clearly enough that there is no "status quo". A No vote will be a global PR disaster for the EU that they will take none to kindly too. I hope we're prepared for the repercussions.

A French No vote to the constitution meant going back to the drawing board. An Irish No vote might see some in the EU voicing the opinion that it would be easier to get rid of us than spend another 8 years drawing up a new treaty.


----------



## so-crates

efm said:


> I agree, and to be fair, aside from the fact that I don't agree with what they are saying, I think the NO camp ran a very clever campaign. I think whoever masterminded the campaign should be poached by the YES camp for the next time!
> 
> I think it was very effective for the NO vote to list the key negatives and say "NO" to them while the YES camp couldn't easily list the benefits for Ireland.
> 
> Also, the slogan, "Europe has been good to us, let's keep it that way, Vote No" (or something similar) was a stroke of genius in my eyes; incorrect but genius nonetheless.


Have to say, kudos to the Labour Party and I will specifically mention Prionsias De Rossa as he was in the yes advert I saw in the Irish Times yesterday. A list of specific benefits to the Lisbon Treaty, which were cross-referenced to specific text in either the Human Rights Charter or the Treaty itself. It was a treat to see such a positive and above all informative list of reasons as opposed to the more regular instructions
Vote Yes 
 -because it is right
 -because it is good for you
 -because it will be embarrassing for Ireland if you don't  

or the 
Vote No 
 -for the souls of dead Irish patriots
 -for a better Europe
 -or your hospitals will be privatised.

The list of facetious or idiotic arguments that have been advanced is quite ridiculous.


----------



## so-crates

Purple said:


> I agree 100%


 I disagree, where does that line of reasoning end? The constitution needed to be amended and that is the prerogative of the electorate not the government. Otherwise referenda would only ever be on safe matters that the government can be assured they would get agreement on. What was needed was a proper campaign of information as opposed to the finger-wagging we were treated to from the Government in particular. You would have thought they would have learned the lesson of the Nice Treaty referenda, if you want people to give a considered response don't start telling them what to think, tell them why you think what you do.


----------



## Purple

I don’t like referenda. I think that they are little removed from mob rule. 
This referendum typifies what they are a bad idea.
A 75% majority of both houses and a signature from the President should be what is required to change the constitution.


----------



## Ceist Beag

so-crates said:


> I disagree, where does that line of reasoning end? The constitution needed to be amended and that is the prerogative of the electorate not the government. Otherwise referenda would only ever be on safe matters that the government can be assured they would get agreement on. What was needed was a proper campaign of information as opposed to the finger-wagging we were treated to from the Government in particular. You would have thought they would have learned the lesson of the Nice Treaty referenda, if you want people to give a considered response don't start telling them what to think, tell them why you think what you do.



so-crates I agree about your points on the campaign but the problem with an election such as this is that for every 1 educated voter who has spent time getting to know what they will be voting on there are another 3 (possibly more!) voters who don't listen to debates, read up on it, or bother doing anything to educate themselves on it other than read a few headlines, posters or listen to the likes of Joe Duffy and then go with whichever scenario sounds most convincing. Course you could probably say that about most elections but on one as complex as this I think it's asking for trouble putting it to the masses.


----------



## ubiquitous

Purple said:


> I don’t like referenda. I think that they are little removed from mob rule.



There is a certain beauty (if that's the word) in "the voice of the people" being the cornerstone of our Constitution as opposed  to the whims of an elected elite. That said, a referendum is a very clumsy method to enact or amend laws, look at the abortion debacles.


----------



## lightswitch

Ceist, do you consider yourself to be one of the masses or are you that bit better than the rest of us?  Putting things to the masses by the way is the fundamental essence of democracy!  The alternatives are not appealing!


----------



## shanegl

lightswitch said:


> Ceist, do you consider yourself to be one of the masses or are you that bit better than the rest of us? Putting things to the masses by the way is the fundamental essence of democracy! The alternatives are not appealing!


 
What's not appealing about a representative democracy? You live in one!


----------



## lightswitch

shanegl said:


> What's not appealing about a representative democracy? You live in one!


 
I said, the alternatives are not appealing!


----------



## redstar

lightswitch said:


> I said, the alternatives are not appealing!



and the alternative is that in a representative democracy our elected govt makes such decisions on our behalf


----------



## ubiquitous

redstar said:


> and the alternative is that in a representative democracy our elected govt makes such decisions on our behalf



I enjoyed Kevin Myers' article on this theme in yesterday's Indo.


----------



## so-crates

Purple said:


> I don’t like referenda. I think that they are little removed from mob rule.
> This referendum typifies what they are a bad idea.
> A 75% majority of both houses and a signature from the President should be what is required to change the constitution.


 


Ceist Beag said:


> so-crates I agree about your points on the campaign but the problem with an election such as this is that for every 1 educated voter who has spent time getting to know what they will be voting on there are another 3 (possibly more!) voters who don't listen to debates, read up on it, or bother doing anything to educate themselves on it other than read a few headlines, posters or listen to the likes of Joe Duffy and then go with whichever scenario sounds most convincing. Course you could probably say that about most elections but on one as complex as this I think it's asking for trouble putting it to the masses.


 
I do understand where you are coming from but still I disagree. The people who choose to vote do so with the intention of stating their understanding and prejudices, howsoever achieved. Their opinion is still valid and they have chosen to vote with some care (even if not with great penetration in their comprehension or discretion in their sources or opinion informers). A disagreeable result for the government on this referendum will reflect directly on the respective yea and nay campaigns, probably more so than on the substantive issue at the heart of them. Especially as a result of the complexity of the change (we are not voting for or against the treaty per se)
Like I said the approach to the referendum by the Yes side, again in particular by the government, appeared high-handed and ill-judged,off-putting for many, distinctly offensive to some. The No campaign was fervent and evocative, if wide-ranging and particularly silly in some instances. The vote was there for the taking, the campaign determines who takes it, particularly with a large floating vote.


----------



## Ceist Beag

lightswitch said:


> Ceist, do you consider yourself to be one of the masses or are you that bit better than the rest of us?



Where did I say I was better than anyone else?  If you mean do I consider I've spent some time reading up on this and trying to educate myself on it before voting then yes I believe I have. By putting yourself into a group of "rest of us" are you implying you did not? And do you honestly believe some hairdresser voting to prevent her son fighting for Europe against Iraq has really spent time researching the basis for this fear in the treaty?


----------



## television

Ceist Beag said:


> And do you honestly believe some hairdresser voting to prevent her son fighting for Europe against Iraq has really spent time researching the basis for this fear in the treaty?


 
And do you really believe the vast majority of people voting yes have spent any considerable time researching the benifits??

And "some hairdresser" has every right to her/his opinion. Or do you want people to sit an examination on the treaty before they are allowed to vote?


----------



## television

redstar said:


> and the alternative is that in a representative democracy our elected govt makes such decisions on our behalf


 
This is a referendum to decide should our constitution be altered. Our representitive democracy allows/insists on this.


----------



## podgerodge

television said:


> This is a referendum to decide should our constitution be altered. Our representitive democracy allows/insists on this.



actually (and sorry if this has been answered earlier in the thread) could someone tell me what in OUR constitution will be altered as opposed to whats in the treaty - I'd like to see the actual amendment as a result of this being passed, if it is..


----------



## ivuernis

I'm off to vote Yes.


----------



## television

Im off to vote no.


----------



## MugsGame

I'm off to toss a coin.


----------



## Mpsox

I voted yes for a number of reasons

Firslty, I detest with a passion the majority of those campaigning for a no vote. If they are not the purveyors of a defunct political idealogy(Marxism), then they are incapable of saying anything other then No(Patricia McKenna) or have the blood of thousands on their hands

But I did actually try to get over my prejudicies and try to look objectively at the Treaty. My conclusions???

I actually have no problem with us loosing a commissioner for a few years. Reality is that there are more countries then commissioners and it is only fair that others have their turn. 

I found I have no problem with some privitisation of public services. I am fed up with incompetent civil servants who cannot be sacked getting away with  incompetence. Mrs Sox gave birth last year and suffered for 30 minutes because a mid wife did not understand how an epidural machine worked properly. Behaviour like that doesn't happen in the private sector because that mid wife would have been sacked. Imagine how many bureaucrats would be sacked in the HSE if it was run along commercial lines

I have no problem with Ireland giving up some of it's neutraility. The concept of neutrality is often put forward as if it is some sort of "holy, sacred" belief. The reality is that there is a time and a place to be neutral and a time and a place when it is the right thing to stand up and fight. It is to this nations undying shame that we stayed neutral in WW2, that we did not stand up and fight the evil that was Nazism and concentration camps and stood by and watched 6 million jewish people die and instead commisserated with the Germans when Hitler died, because we were neutral. And who knows, maybe a time will come when we need someone to stand up for us, would anyone rush to our aid if we aren't prepare to rush to their

Lastly, Europe has been good for us, very good for us and this country would be well and truely f..ked if it weren't for it. So there might be a cost for us if we vote yes, so what?

There are 2 kinds of people in this world, those who are prepared to get up and give something back to their community and those who sit behind closed doors, never giving anything back and just take take take. Lisbon is asking us to give a little back, it's the right, proper and decent thing to do. I'm proud I voted Yes


----------



## MugsGame

> I actually have no problem with us loosing a commissioner for a few years.



Good, because we already got that when we signed up to the Nice Treaty.


----------



## room305

television said:


> And all the evidence from private systems world wide suggests that it leads to an devide of access between those who can afford to pay and those who cant.


 
What evidence? The French medical system is heavily privatised and the largest hospital in Sweden is listed on the stock exchange. Would you suggest these are poor models to emulate?




television said:


> And "some hairdresser" has every right to her/his opinion. Or do you want people to sit an examination on the treaty before they are allowed to vote?


 
And if I told you I was going to vote No but then changed my mind because some bloke down the pub told me he heard everybody in Ireland was going to get a free Mini-Cooper from the German government if the treaty was passed, you'd say that was score one for democracy?

It is impossible to assume everyone voting is in a position to study the treaty carefully, leaving the whole thing wide open to scaremongering on both sides. Including yourself with allegations of sinister Mr. Burns-type industrialists dictating our health policy if we vote Yes.

That's why I agree with the other posters that these decisions should (like all other EU countries) be decided by our elected representatives.



Mpsox said:


> There are 2 kinds of people in this world, those who are prepared to get up and give something back to their community and those who sit behind closed doors, never giving anything back and just take take take. Lisbon is asking us to give a little back, it's the right, proper and decent thing to do. I'm proud I voted Yes


 
A truly excellent post. If I hadn't already swung around the Yes side in recent weeks that post may very well have won me over.


----------



## shanegl

MugsGame said:


> Good, because we already got that when we signed up to the Nice Treaty.



Exactly! I wonder if there is a No vote today, will Libertas be around to explain themselves when, under the fabled _status quo_, we lose our commissioner to rotation as provided for under the Nice Treaty? I suspect not.


----------



## television

.[/quote]


----------



## television

room305 said:


> What evidence? The French medical system is heavily privatised and the largest hospital in Sweden is listed on the stock exchange. Would you suggest these are poor models to emulate?


 
The french heatlh care system is free at the point of access for all and where people do pay there is various rebate systems. 

There is plenty of evident for the fact that there is a great difference between the type and quality of health care in America between those who can afford to pay and those who cannot.

One swallow does not make a summer and one private hospital does not make the swedish health system privatised.




room305 said:


> And if I told you I was going to vote No but then changed my mind because some bloke down the pub told me he heard everybody in Ireland was going to get a free Mini-Cooper from the German government if the treaty was passed, you'd say that was score one for democracy?


 
Very little I can argue against that??????????

I





room305 said:


> t is impossible to assume everyone voting is in a position to study the treaty carefully, leaving the whole thing wide open to scaremongering on both sides. Including yourself with allegations of sinister Mr. Burns-type industrialists dictating our health policy if we vote Yes.


 


room305 said:


> That's why I agree with the other posters that these decisions should (like all other EU countries) be decided by our elected representatives


 
The complete contradiction in your point here is that our democratic structures were decided upon by elected representitives. these structures mean that a referendum is constitutionally necessary if there is a proposed ammemendent to the constitution as is the case in this situation now. Other countries in europe have developed different constitutional arrangements.

As a for the Mr bURNS COMMENT come up with some original material.


----------



## television

MPsox

Although I disaggree with a lot of what you say except for the irish responce to the naziS I enjoyed your last post.

However if you think there is not examples of extereme incompetence in a privatised health care system your mistaken. One of the biggest areas of litigation in America is Health related issues.


----------



## television

quote


----------



## television

so-crates said:


> Like I said the approach to the referendum by the Yes side, again in particular by the government, appeared high-handed and ill-judged,off-putting for many, distinctly offensive to some. The No campaign was fervent and evocative, if wide-ranging and particularly silly in some instances. The vote was there for the taking, the campaign determines who takes it, particularly with a large floating vote.


 
Very good point.


----------



## so-crates

ivuernis said:


> I'm off to vote Yes.


 


television said:


> Im off to vote no.


 


MugsGame said:


> I'm off to toss a coin.


 
 Hope it didn't land on the edge MugsGame

Mine was "Tá/Yes"


----------



## rmelly

I was thinking of complaining about the order of the options. Sort order should have been alphabetical, with Níl/No first.


----------



## shanegl

Why, because it will influence people to vote Yes because Yes was the first option? Surely No at the bottom is more preferable because its closer to your hand?


----------



## ninsaga

... well its all done now & I guess that means we are totally screwed... irrespective of the outcome!


----------



## ubiquitous

Mpsox said:


> There are 2 kinds of people in this world, those who are prepared to get up and give something back to their community and those who sit behind closed doors, never giving anything back and just take take take. Lisbon is asking us to give a little back, it's the right, proper and decent thing to do. I'm proud I voted Yes



How on earth can you, as a Yes voter, smugly dismiss hundreds of thousands of people as "those who sit behind closed doors, never giving anything back and just take take take", simply on the basis that you disagree with them on this issue?

Your comment would be outrageous and libellous if directed at a single individual. It is ridiculous when directed at a third to a half or more of our electorate. The notion that one sector in society are morally superior to another on the basis of their opinion on a particular political issue is absurd.


----------



## gebbel

SKY News are saying its not looking good for the Yes campaign


----------



## Purple

gebbel said:


> SKY News are saying its not looking good for the Yes campaign



The EU army will be massing in France for an invasion within a week. We're screwed!


----------



## csirl

Anyone any news on tallys from counting stations? Early predictions and tallys seem to suggest No vote by early 50s to late 40s in percentage terms.


----------



## cole

Looks like a No vote. We can resurrect this thread in two months when we're asked to vote on this again.


----------



## podgerodge

cole said:


> We can resurrect this thread in two months when we're asked to vote on this again.



That comment could be taken seriously, thats the frightening thing!


----------



## polaris

I see that most rural constituencies are showing a No vote. If the IFA didn't deliver the yes votes they promised in return for the veto on the WTO negotiations, this could backfire on them!


----------



## csirl

Its been called a "Constitution" and when that was rejected, they changed the name to "Treaty". What will the next name change be? My bet is on "Lisbon Agreement".


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Were the Yes people scaremongering after all? We are now set for Bertie's "disaster" but the stockmarket is quite unfazed now that it is going to be a No. I hope Bertie was wrong and the stockmarket is right.


----------



## ivuernis

csirl said:


> there are c.100,000 Chinese people working in Ireland



There were 11,161 Chinese people in Ireland according to the 2006 census.


----------



## television

good spot ivuernis


----------



## ivuernis

television said:


> Ok great solution. kick out the chineese. and force irish people into working in spar shops for 8 E and hour. And then ask them all to buy VHI at 2000E for thier families.
> 
> Good sencible economic solution that



WTF? Where did I say "kick out the Chinese"? I was just correcting the wildly inaccurate figure of the number of Chinese nationals residing in Ireland.


----------



## television

ivuernis said:


> WTF? Where did I say "kick out the Chinese"? I was just correcting the wildly inaccurate figure of the number of Chinese nationals residing in Ireland.


 
Misreading that i changed myself.


----------



## ivuernis

television said:


> Misreading that i changed myself.



Fair enough, saw that you'd changed your post after I replied. It came way out of leftfield and caught me on the hop ;-)


----------



## csirl

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *csirl* http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=648086#post648086
> _there are c.100,000 Chinese people working in Ireland_
> 
> There were 11,161 Chinese people in Ireland according to the 2006 census.


 
The National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturism say that there are between 60,000 and 100,000.

Anecdotal evidence would suggest that the NCCRI figures are more accurate than the Cenus figures.


----------



## csirl

Arent we getting off the topic a bit.....some of it my fault.

Looks like Lisbon is dead and buried. Anyone think that the EU elites will take any notice? Thats 3 referenda failures on essentially the same issues (2 countries rejected it when it was the "EU Constitution")


----------



## bond-007

I suppose now plans will be drawn up for a Lisbon 2.


----------



## Purple

No 54%, Yes 46%
To the barricades!


----------



## redstar

No 54%, Yes 46%

... which is about 22% of the electorate deciding for 500 million 
... damn those minorities and the 55% who didn't bother to vote  ...


----------



## television

csirl said:


> Arent we getting off the topic a bit.....some of it my fault.
> 
> Looks like Lisbon is dead and buried. Anyone think that the EU elites will take any notice? Thats 3 referenda failures on essentially the same issues (2 countries rejected it when it was the "EU Constitution")


 

No they wont beccause they know better than religious troles from ireland who voted no because of thier fear of abortion and because they are irrational drunckards.


----------



## Purple

television said:


> No they wont beccause they know better than religious troles from ireland who voted no because of thier fear of abortion and because they are irrational drunckards.


The irrational bit is unfair


----------



## Simeon

A case of the YES being led by the NOSE


----------



## csirl

Is there any website showing the actual results in each constituency i.e. the number of votes cast for/against? Most of the news sites I've looked at seem to have just textual reports giving rough percentages for some constituencues.


----------



## Past30Now

www.rte.ie/lisbon gives a breakdown by number of votes and %'s

Regards,

Past30


----------



## DeeFox

Brian Cowen said there was no more important task in front of him than getting the Treaty passed - and he has given huge attention to this over the last month or so.  I am concerned that political attention will remain on this area now at a time when the government should be more focused on the mounting problems in the economy.


----------



## csirl

I'm beginning to think that Cowen is another Gordan Brown. The electorate just arent taking to him.


----------



## ivuernis

Of course, if they hadn't fcuked-up with the electronic voting machines they could have had the referendum rigged for a yes vote


----------



## Sunny

Interesting reading the media sites in various countries like France and Italy and seeing the comments. To be honest it looks like the only disappointed people are the politicians.


----------



## ontour

If they weighted the votes by the amount of tax that people pay, would the Yes vote have won?


----------



## Purple

ontour said:


> If they weighted the votes by the amount of tax that people pay, would the Yes vote have won?



They used to have a system like that in the North. It was not popular with some.
Personally I'm a democrat and don't see a link between what people earn and their value as people.


----------



## redstar

Amazing. The vote so far is identical to Nice (part 1).

[broken link removed]


----------



## eileen alana

csirl said:


> I'm beginning to think that Cowen is another Gordan Brown. The electorate just arent taking to him.


 

I agree with you there, he is just not Bertie


----------



## shnaek

eileen alana said:


> I agree with you there, he is just not Bertie


I doubt this vote has anything to do with Cowen, though. That's just going by the interviews on the radio with people who were voting No, and from chatting with friends and colleagues at work. 
It is more to do with the basic arguement - what was to gain by voting yes? There were mistakes made on the YES side - particularly the tactics of fear rather than convincing people of the merits of a yes vote. 
The fact that the French minister came out saying Ireland would be a loser if they voted NO was particularly idiotic, considering his country already voted NO to this not too long ago, and he'd hardly accept that the French have suffered negative consequences. 
It will be interesting to see how this turns out.


----------



## ivuernis

eileen alana said:


> I agree with you there, he is just not Bertie



I think he's miles better than Bertie and is suffering from the Bertie fall-out.


----------



## csirl

Comments from other European Countries suggest that they are going ahead with their individual ratification processes even though Lisbon cannot continue without our ratification.

I'm wondering if they are thinking that this will be like the Nice Treaty - just wait a few months and the Irish will have another referendum and vote Yes. So it looks like the Nice debacle has damaged the impact of an Irish No vote and the credibility of the Irish electorate. And I've no doubt that our leaders, instead of respecting the will of the Irish people will be pendling the view around the EU that this vote is a temporary set back and we'll vote Yes in a few months time. No voters will need to stand firm next time round if they want to send a message to the EU.


----------



## Gautama

Has Biffo made any comment?


----------



## Gautama

csirl said:


> Is there any website showing the actual results in each constituency i.e. the number of votes cast for/against? Most of the news sites I've looked at seem to have just textual reports giving rough percentages for some constituencues.


 
www.ireland.com
[broken link removed]http://www.rte.ie


----------



## Caveat

Have just received an email from a French customer thanking the people of Ireland for a no vote...


----------



## starlite68

its offical now,the no vote have it......happy days


----------



## Graham_07

Gautama said:


> www.ireland.com
> [broken link removed]


 



& go to "current referendum " tab


----------



## Gautama

It's all over, the final tally from the taoiseach's constituency has come in.
Over 100,000 votes more voted 'No'.
The EU that has had us in good stead for the last 35 years is to remain as is.
Phew!


----------



## so-crates

Gautama said:


> It's all over, the final tally from the taoiseach's constituency has come in.
> Over 100,000 votes more voted 'No'.
> The EU that has had us in good stead for the last 35 years is to remain as is.
> Phew!


 
Good grief are you serious? The existence of the EU was never at question in this referendum nor dependent on it's outcome. 

Better still, the *EU* hasn't existed for the last 35 years. In 1972 we joined the *EEC*. The union is a constantly changing dynamic entity, in geographic size, population numbers and constituent populations, political structures etc. What exactly did you think that the change to the Irish constitution we just rejected would result in?


----------



## ontour

Purple said:


> They used to have a system like that in the North. It was not popular with some.
> Personally I'm a democrat and don't see a link between what people earn and their value as people.


 

i agree that there is not a link between what people earn and their value as people.  I am also not sure that there is a direct link in Ireland between what people earn and what they pay in tax.

I think that there is a correlation between socio-economic groups and their attitudes to europe with the more financially independent seeing the benefits.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Caveat said:


> Have just received an email from a French customer thanking the people of Ireland for a no vote...


And well she may be happy. This now gives the French a clear run to harmonise the CT rate, a real sore point with them. Why do you think that French guy made such a crass intervention into the referendum?


----------



## gearoidmm

This vote is a disgrace. There are plenty of valid reasons for voting yes or no but to think that this failed essentially because of the 'I don't understand so I'll vote no' brigade.  If one more person said 'It just hasn't been explained to us properly' to me over the last few days I'd have strangled them.  Fair enough if the information was unclear or just not there but you ask the same people have they read the literature, the papers or looked at the website - absolutely not - sure why would they waste their time when they could just be safe and vote no.

As Monty Python would say, what did Europe ever do for us anyway?


----------



## cole

gearoidmm said:


> This vote is a disgrace. There are plenty of valid reasons for voting yes or no but to think that this failed essentially because of the 'I don't understand so I'll vote no' brigade.


 
What makes you think it failed on this?


----------



## so-crates

gearoidmm said:


> This vote is a disgrace. There are plenty of valid reasons for voting yes or no but to think that this failed essentially because of the 'I don't understand so I'll vote no' brigade. If one more person said 'It just hasn't been explained to us properly' to me over the last few days I'd have strangled them. Fair enough if the information was unclear or just not there but you ask the same people have they read the literature, the papers or looked at the website - absolutely not - sure why would they waste their time when they could just be safe and vote no.
> 
> As Monty Python would say, what did Europe ever do for us anyway?


 
The main parties in the state have spent quite a considerable wad of cash in trying to convince us to vote yes. People are rarely happy to leap into the unknown and that campaign should have been directed at convincing them, instead it was directed at insinuating that only a fool would vote no. Well many people would be happier being a fool who knows where they stand than a fool who doesn't know. Not all media was pro-treaty, there was a considerable drive from the British owned media in particular against the treaty. Not all information was in favour of a yes vote or was comprehensible to all. The yes campaign lost on the demerits of their campaign not on the idiocy of the voters.


----------



## diarmuidc

television said:


> What I would be willing to pay and what a guy with two kids earning 40000 a year should pay are very different.


I asked *you* what percentage increase *you* on your hypothetical 40k/year with 2 kids is willing to pay. Can't you answer that question?



starlite68 said:


> its offical now,the no vote have it......happy days



So what are you expecting the EU will do now? Do you believe Gerry Adams that it will be renegotiated?


----------



## shanegl

That would involve a second referendum. Sure then they wouldn't be respecting the wishes of the Irish electorate, that's what they did with Nice, they'll keep asking us till they get the right answer, blah, blah, blah.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

What made me cringe even more than Grisly Adams' triumphalism was to see on BBC the head of the British Independence Party gushing with delight.


----------



## so-crates

shanegl said:


> That would involve a second referendum. Sure then they wouldn't be respecting the wishes of the Irish electorate, that's what they did with Nice, they'll keep asking us till they get the right answer, blah, blah, blah.


While I do see the Mrs. Doyle in asking the same question, sometimes it is the right thing to do. It depends on why people rejected Lisbon. Did people reject Lisbon because they soberly and dispassionately saw it as not only of no benefit but of actual detriment to us? I sincerly doubt it, I think many voted no due to uncertainty, some due to misinformation, some due to fear, some due to disaffection with the government. In which case should their first no be the only chance they have to answer?


----------



## shanegl

so-crates said:


> While I do see the Mrs. Doyle in asking the same question, sometimes it is the right thing to do. It depends on why people rejected Lisbon. Did people reject Lisbon because they soberly and dispassionately saw it as not only of no benefit but of actual detriment to us? I sincerly doubt it, I think many voted no due to uncertainty, some due to misinformation, some due to fear, some due to disaffection with the government. In which case should their first no be the only chance they have to answer?



I've no problem with an amended treaty being put before another vote (that's what Libertas and Sinn Fein were campaigning for by the way. Will we see them campaign for renegotiation now?), but I don't agree with just re-running the vote, and I can't see that happening anyway.


----------



## gearoidmm

cole said:


> What makes you think it failed on this?



The only person that I had a reasoned debate with on the treaty was my 17yr old nephew.  He laid out his reasons for opposing it which, although I disagreed with him, I respect his opinion.  The majority of people I spoke to over the last few weeks repeated the same misinformation and scaremongering that was being put forward by sections of the no campaign.  I know it's anecdotal but I wish they all stayed at home.  

That said, I will also accept that many of the yes voters were voting for all the wrong reasons too - more than one person said that the only reason they were voting yes was because Sinn Fein were on the no side.


----------



## BillK

I believe that the arrogance epitomised by Barroso saying that the ratification process would continue gives all the reason you need for rejection. The legalalities say that the ratification of the treaty must be unanimous or the treaty falls. The result of the Irish referendum means that ratification of the treaty cannot be unanimous, so the implication of his statement is that Ireland's vote does not matter.

God bless Ireland!


----------



## television

if you hear the yes side now giving their reasons why people voted no. It is pathetic everything from the murdach press to unfounded fears over abortion. Basically there are those in the political estabilshment who do not trust ordinary people. they think ordinary people are Sun reading morons. they just cannot comprehend that people looked at this treaty and came to an informed discision. Which was A big NOOOOOO. And then they wanted ordinary people to swallow the line "trust us we know this is right for you" without effectively telling them why it was right. This sends a clear message to politicans

Dont treat ordinary people like morans.
No to a federal  European Superstate
No to privitisation of public services


----------



## television

so-crates said:


> The main parties in the state have spent quite a considerable wad of cash in trying to convince us to vote yes. People are rarely happy to leap into the unknown and that campaign should have been directed at convincing them, instead it was directed at insinuating that only a fool would vote no. Well many people would be happier being a fool who knows where they stand than a fool who doesn't know. Not all media was pro-treaty, there was a considerable drive from the British owned media in particular against the treaty. Not all information was in favour of a yes vote or was comprehensible to all. The yes campaign lost on the demerits of their campaign not on the idiocy of the voters.


 
An ecellent point and very well said. But tell that to the majority of pundit/protreaty politicians on the radio/tv to day. They still dont get it.


----------



## wavejumper

television said:


> if you hear the yes side now giving their reasons why people voted no. It is pathetic everything from the murdach press to unfounded fears over abortion. Basically there are those in the political estabilshment who do not trust ordinary people. they think ordinary people are Sun reading morons. they just cannot comprehend that people looked at this treaty and came to an informed discision. Which was A big NOOOOOO. And then they wanted ordinary people to swallow the line "trust us we know this is right for you" without effectively telling them why it was right. This sends a clear message to politicans
> 
> Dont treat ordinary people like morans.
> No to a federal  European Superstate
> No to privitisation of public services



Murdoch 
establishment 
decision
politicians
morons
Don’t
privatisation 

Hardly surprising people voted no on account of not understanding the treaty eh?


----------



## television

wavejumper said:


> Murdoch
> establishment
> decision
> politicians
> morons
> Don’t
> privatisation
> 
> Hardly surprising people voted no on account of not understanding the treaty eh?


 

No sure i get you???


----------



## so-crates

television said:


> An ecellent point and very well said. But tell that to the majority of pundit/protreaty politicians on the radio/tv to day. They still dont get it.


 
They have plenty of time to consider it. Stephen Collins, Political Editor in the Irish Times certainly seems to concur that the Government lost the referendum on their campaign. He has a quite detailed article in their Breaking News Section.


----------



## so-crates

television said:


> ...Dont treat ordinary people like morans....


 
I've known several Morans and they aren't all morons


----------



## so-crates

BillK said:


> I believe that the arrogance epitomised by Barroso saying that the ratification process would continue gives all the reason you need for rejection. The legalalities say that the ratification of the treaty must be unanimous or the treaty falls. The result of the Irish referendum means that ratification of the treaty cannot be unanimous, so the implication of his statement is that Ireland's vote does not matter.
> 
> God bless Ireland!


 
Hmm, or that other European countries have the same rights as we do to consider this treaty? Why should we be the only ones to determine the future direction of Europe?


----------



## S.L.F

so-crates said:


> Hmm, or that other European countries have the same rights as we do to consider this treaty? Why should we be the only ones to determine the future direction of Europe?



This ground has been covered already.

In order for the Treaty to pass our constitution would have to have been changed.

That can only be done by the people of Ireland not the politicians or any other countries politicians.

And most important it is *our *constitution not Europes


----------



## television

so-crates said:


> I've known several Morans and they aren't all morons


----------



## Nemesis

S.L.F said:


> This ground has been covered already.
> 
> In order for the Treaty to pass our constitution would have to have been changed.
> 
> That can only be done by the people of Ireland not the politicians or any other countries politicians.
> 
> And most important it is *our *constitution not Europes



That's not the point. We have no right to block the other 26 states from proceeding with the reforms contained in the Lisbon treaty. The other states don't care what we do with our constitution and if it comes to the crunch they couldn't care whether we're in or outside the union. It's not like we've got huge oil revenues that they want to get their hands on. If Ireland wasn't already in the EU, there wouldn't be a problem now. I don't know exactly how it could be done but clearly the idea of Ireland leaving the EU or the other countries forming a new EU without Ireland has to be a real option now. I think it will be some time before we fully appreciate just how profound a change today was for our relationship with Europe.


----------



## television

all EU countries decided that all would have have to ratify the treaty in order for the treaty to move forward. this was aggreed opon before this vote. Now it has not gone the way of europe their going to move on with Lisbon anyway. Another example of why Europe cannot be trusted to act on its own rules. Any wonder there was a no vote.


----------



## diarmuidc

television said:


> all EU countries decided that all would have have to ratify the treaty in order for the treaty to move forward. this was aggreed opon before this vote. Now it has not gone the way of europe their going to move on with Lisbon anyway. Another example of why Europe cannot be trusted to act on its own rules. Any wonder there was a no vote.



Maybe, or maybe the other 97% of the EU who have decided to ratify the treaty will decide that maybe they can live without Ireland as part of the future EU. Who's loss will this be? (BTW I don't think this scenario is likely)


----------



## S.L.F

Nemesis said:


> We have no right to block the other 26 states from proceeding with the reforms contained in the Lisbon treaty.



We have every right!

The rules of this treaty were simple every country had to agree to pass it.

Most of the people I know who voted "No" voted this way because FF seemed to spend more time pointing out who was in the "No" camp and not enough time explaining what the whole thing was about.


----------



## television

Thats not the point really.The point it is that it was decided before this vote that allcountryies would have to ratify the treaty or it would be dead (to quote the labour leader) Now we all know its not dead. that other countries will go ahead anyway. Which shows the complete duplicity of the powers that be in europe.


----------



## Nemesis

It's still not reasonable for one country to stop everyone else whatever was agreed originally. Croatia is a country eager to join the EU and one whose membership fits in with a key strategic objective of the Union to stabilise the Western Balkans and integrate that region into the European family of nations. Its path is now blocked until this mess is sorted out. It's just not realistic to think that Ireland's decision can block everything indefinitely. No one wants to force Ireland into this arrangement if the people are resolutely opposed to it, but equally Ireland cannot just expect to enjoy the benefits of the existing Union which requires that everyone else stand still.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Is it democratic that 54% of 45% of 1% can call the shots?


----------



## television

Nemesis said:


> It's still not reasonable for one country to stop everyone else whatever was agreed originally.


 
Im afraid its very reasonable. Its the rules. Every one knew them befor hand.


----------



## rmelly

Harchibald said:


> Is it democratic that 54% of 45% of 1% can call the shots?


 
Is it democratic that only 1% gets the opportunity to vote? We now know that the Irish people disagree with it's politicians on the issue, who is to say the same doesn't apply in some or many of the countries that already ratified by parliamentary votes?


----------



## television

Harchibald said:


> Is it democratic that 54% of 45% of 1% can call the shots?


 

I thought the overall vote was 53-53%


----------



## Nemesis

rmelly said:


> Is it democratic that only 1% gets the opportunity to vote? We now know that the Irish people disagree with it's politicians on the issue, who is to say the same doesn't apply in some or many of the countries that already ratified by parliamentary votes?



Is it democratic that our government decided to privatise Eircom and Aer Lingus without putting the issue to the people? Is it democratic for our government to cut spending on education or health to balance the budget without putting it to the people?


----------



## shanegl

Its hilarious to see some people who complain about the lack of democracy in the EU then go on to react with horror at the democratically elected parliamentary representatives of other countries exercising their mandate as they see fit. They have every right to ratify any Treaty they please, and its none of your business I'm afraid.


----------



## rmelly

These are local issues that we have given the Dail and government the right to decide on.

We haven't given them the same rights on EU matters.


----------



## room305

television said:


> Health insureance for me and my family is around 2 grand (not a big family!). you think this is affordable for some one with 3 or 4 kids on an average industrial wage where its probalbly doubled?


 
That's hilarious. You voted no to the Lisbon Treaty in case it resulted in further privatisation of Irish health services but you _actually pay_ for private health care for yourself.

It is refreshing to see someone whose beliefs run so deep.


----------



## cole

shanegl said:


> Its hilarious to see some people who complain about the lack of democracy in the EU then go on to react with horror at the democratically elected parliamentary representatives of other countries exercising their mandate as they see fit. They have every right to ratify any Treaty they please, and its none of your business I'm afraid.


 
The French government admitted that if their people voted on this referendum it would be defeated. It _was_ defeated when it went before the French and Dutch people as the Constitution. It's now 95% the same document except that only Ireland had the right to hold a referendum. Why were the other countries not allowed to hold a referendum this time around? Coincidence?


----------



## BillK

Socrates,

Sorry for delay in responding.

The reason why those of us living in the UK didn't have a vote is because our Government has reneged on a manifesto undertaking to give us a referendum on the grounds that the Lisbon Treaty is not a constitution. I can't speak for any other country, though I believe that we here are not the only ones denied a referendum on similar grounds.


----------

