# lisbon vote



## cleverclogs7 (30 Jul 2009)

Sorry not sure of place to post this.But would like some help in understanding the lisbon.without being judged ta very much.
treaty is not written in layman's terms.the irish constituation i understand.the lisbon treaty i do not.

*Can someone please give me in layman's tears reasons to vote yes or no.or what will happen if the irish vote no again.And why the heck do we have to have another vote? Because dumb PEEPS LIKE MYSELF DIDNT UNDERSTAND IT THE FIRST TIME AROUND.COULDNT THE MONEY USED FOR THIS VOTE BE PUT TO SOMETHING MORE USEFULL INSTEAD.*


----------



## Ancutza (30 Jul 2009)

You're a bit of a thicky aren't you?!  The reason that you have to vote 'Yes' is because the government says so.  Sorry, RTE also seem to have waded in on  the 'Yes' side too so watch your telly and get with the programme.  This time around fear will provide the 'right' outcome.  Ireland has become a terrrible, horrible nanny state to which I'd only ever wish to bring my kids on very brief visits.

No one yet has reliably explained what part of the word 'No' Fianna Fail and the EU comission don't understand.


----------



## DavyJones (30 Jul 2009)

Ancutza said:


> You're a bit of a thicky aren't you?!  The reason that you have to vote 'Yes' is because the government says so.  Sorry, RTE also seem to have waded in on  the 'Yes' side too so watch your telly and get with the programme.  This time around fear will provide the 'right' outcome.  Ireland has become a terrrible, horrible nanny state to which I'd only ever wish to bring my kids on very brief visits.
> 
> No one yet has reliably explained what part of the word 'No' Fianna Fail and the EU comission don't understand.




Interesting, where do you live now?


----------



## cleverclogs7 (30 Jul 2009)

christ,pardon me for asking a question.Didnt the counrty get a NO vote because of lack of understanding.I wont be "PUSHED" AS YOU CALL IT,INTO SOMETHING I DONT FULLY COMPERHEND. A thicky as you call me i am not.But i would be thick if i voted for something i dont understand.Now,put that in your pipe and smoke it.Grrrrrrrr


----------



## cleverclogs7 (30 Jul 2009)

DavyJones said:


> Interesting, where do you live now?


 
.the answer is Romania.


----------



## Protocol (30 Jul 2009)

*What are main features of the Lisbon Treaty? *

The Lisbon Treaty: 

sets out the Union’s values – including respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights including the rights of minorities;

defines the EU’s competences more clearly than in previous Treaties and makes it clear that competences not explicitly conferred on the Union remain with the Member States;

gives legal effect to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter;

will allow the EU to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights;

allows for a citizens’ initiative under which 1 million citizens from a number of Member States can petition the European Commission on issues falling within the EU’s competence;

expands the right of individuals to bring proceedings before the European Court of Justice in relation to acts of the Union;

gives a new role in EU affairs to national parliaments including the Oireachtas.

increases the powers of the European Parliament, which under Lisbon will have 751 members including 12 from Ireland.  Under Lisbon, the European Parliament will legislate jointly on most EU issues with the Council of Ministers, where the Irish Government is represented alongside the governments of the other 26 EU Member States;

provides for the appointment of a President of the European Council who will hold office for a maximum period of 5 years and will chair four meetings of EU leaders each year;

allows for more decisions to be taken by the Council of Ministers on a new double majority basis, i.e. by at least 15 EU countries representing at least 65% of the Union’s population;

makes changes in the conduct of the Union’s external relations including by the appointment of a High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy;

gives citizens the right to deal with the EU institutions in any EU language including Irish;

makes a number of changes to the EU Treaties in respect of border checks, asylum and immigration, judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters and police cooperation.  Ireland is not bound by measures adopted in these areas, but can opt to be involved on a case-by-case basis;

gives the European Union some new competences in such areas as energy, humanitarian aid, tourism, sport, administrative cooperation and the participation by young people in the democratic life of Europe. Climate change is also a new political objective, given expression in the Treaty on foot of a proposal by Ireland."

Under an arrangement known as ‘enhanced cooperation’, the Treaty lays down the procedures for allowing a group of Member States to cooperate more deeply in certain areas of EU policy.  This arrangement does not apply in the field of common foreign and security policy.


----------



## Ancutza (31 Jul 2009)

> You're a bit of a thicky aren't you?!



So sorry cleverclogs! I wasn't actually alluding to your intelligence quotient.  I was trying to be ironic. Obviously I got it wrong and offended you which DEFO wasn't my intention.  Contrite apologies.

Yes I live in Romania for the last 9 years.


----------



## Bill Struth (31 Jul 2009)

cleverclogs7 said:


> christ,pardon me for asking a question.Didnt the counrty get a NO vote because of lack of understanding.I wont be "PUSHED" AS YOU CALL IT,INTO SOMETHING I DONT FULLY COMPERHEND. A thicky as you call me i am not.But i would be thick if i voted for something i dont understand.Now,put that in your pipe and smoke it.Grrrrrrrr


----------



## csirl (31 Jul 2009)

In a nutshell.

The EU is not fully democratic and its institutions have little or no DIRECT democratic accountability. While the Lisbon Treaty shifts the deck chairs on the deck a bit and streamlines some processes to account for the EU now being bigger, it does not address the democratic deficit. It copperfastens some of the non-democratic principals and the existing principal of unequal representation in the EU Parliament - some EU citizens are valued more than others. These are the reasons I am voting No. 

What will happen if it is rejected?

Not a lot - EU will continue in its current format. Probably not expand anymore until they come up with a replacement - this is more of a political decision than anything else - EU can expand in its current format, but the current EU members do not want the new members to be involved in the reorganisation. 

As a democratic country, Ireland's should always take a strong pro-democratic stance. Its a shame that our leaders dont do so.

On thing that is never mentioned in debates is that if we vote yes, we can vote again in the future to remove the references to the treaty from our Constitution and it is perfectly legal for us to do so. But this would be very difficult from a political point of view.


----------



## bb12 (31 Jul 2009)

it's the unequal representation reason that I will vote NO again in the next referendum...plus the fact that the treaty is so complicated that any decisions made on it will be held up in the european courts each time, so i can't see how it will make life easier for the bureaucrats at all...plus the fact that if we vote yes, ireland will never ever be in this position of power ever again in the future...why give it away?!!!...plus the fact that the government here decided to ignore a valid democratic 'no' vote the last time...i wish people weren't scared into voting yes just for the sake of it...


----------



## Guest116 (31 Jul 2009)

I am voting yes. We dont have any "position of power", what do you meam by that?


----------



## liaconn (31 Jul 2009)

cleverclogs7 said:


> christ,pardon me for asking a question.Didnt the counrty get a NO vote because of lack of understanding.I wont be "PUSHED" AS YOU CALL IT,INTO SOMETHING I DONT FULLY COMPERHEND. A thicky as you call me i am not.But i would be thick if i voted for something i dont understand.Now,put that in your pipe and smoke it.Grrrrrrrr


 
There seems to be a severe sense of humour loss on this board lately. This is the second time in the last couple of days that someone has been attacked for saying something that was meant as irony.


----------



## Purple (31 Jul 2009)

liaconn said:


> There seems to be a severe sense of humour loss on this board lately. This is the second time in the last couple of days that someone has been attacked for saying something that was meant as irony.


I agree; it's only the internet; relax!


----------



## Ancutza (31 Jul 2009)

Well no hard feelings.  I don't really feel attacked and sometimes how things that are written are not read as they should be understood if you get my drift.  I apologise profusely again if I offended.

Anyway, 1st time around I didn't vote although I thought the the Lisbon treaty was undesirable.  Second time around I really would be happy to spend the money for a flight and vote 'No'.

This time around what's got my goat is the blatant flaunting of the peoples democratically expressed will. Nothing has changed (except for the fact that RTE appear to have been leaned-on) so why do we have to vote again???  

Democracy means you don't always get the outcome you desire.  Explain that to the Cowen and the other Eurocrats.


----------



## room305 (2 Aug 2009)

Voted yes the last time, voting no this time. Whatever it takes to collapse this government.


----------



## RMCF (2 Aug 2009)

room305 said:


> Voted yes the last time, voting no this time. Whatever it takes to collapse this government.



do you really think any other crowd will do any better?

They are all the same. Easy to say you'll fix things when not in power, but very hard to do it when you are since you're an easy target.

I think the Lisbon vote will get passed easily this time around, simply because many are afraid to vote 'no'. The country is banjax'd and they will be told that if we want to improve the country, jobs, wealth, future etc they must vote 'yes', and they will.


----------



## micmclo (3 Aug 2009)

Voting no

Sure we'd all be conscripted to a European army by now if we voted yes last time! 

Or at least that's one of the arguements I was told last time....


----------



## starlite68 (3 Aug 2009)

RMCF said:


> I think the Lisbon vote will get passed easily this time around, simply because many are afraid to vote 'no'. .


dont be to sure about that!


----------



## room305 (3 Aug 2009)

RMCF said:


> do you really think any other crowd will do any better?



I don't know if the "other crowd" will do any better but if you don't punish politicians for incompetence and corruption, then don't expect them to stop being incompetent and corrupt.

There is also the more immediate issue of NAMA. The only realistic prospect of blocking it is to get the current government thrown out and for a general election to be called. A second no vote to Lisbon will probably sufficient to topple Cowan and I doubt even Fianna Fail would elect a second leader with no mandate.


----------



## S.L.F (4 Aug 2009)

RMCF said:


> do you really think any other crowd will do any better?
> 
> They are all the same. Easy to say you'll fix things when not in power, but very hard to do it when you are since you're an easy target.


 
I believe Coco the clown would be a better leader than the one we currently have.

They are not all the same this is something FF spin docs have been having us say for years the other one is "Aw sure who else is there".

I really wish FG would move Enda out of the leadership and move someone else in.

I'll be voting "*NO*" again I just don't trust them to do what's right for us.


----------



## Teatime (4 Aug 2009)

S.L.F said:


> They are not all the same this is something FF spin docs have been having us say for years the other one is "Aw sure who else is there".


 
Unfortunately they are all the same. They are all concerned with power and money. Corruption is rife in this country at all levels. They have short term aims and will not react to long term problems. A couple of Labour councillors doing high 'family mileage' to attend vital conferences below:

http://www.independent.ie/national-...-for-mileage-but-dont-even-drive-1850004.html

If FG get in, expect more of the same dithering and inaction...


----------



## michaelm (4 Aug 2009)

RMCF said:


> I think the Lisbon vote will get passed easily this time around, simply because many are afraid to vote 'no'. The country is banjax'd and they will be told that if we want to improve the country, jobs, wealth, future etc they must vote 'yes', and they will.


I'm sad to say that I agree with RMCF's assessment.  The one country that got a vote on it will be bullied into accepting it the second time round.  Protocol's summary sounds reassuringly benign but Lisbon dilutes the voting strength of Ireland and other small countries and surrenders many vetoes to QMV.  It's another step along the road to a Federal Europe, I wish they'd be honest about their project.  I'll be voting 'no'; at least, if it's carried, we will likely never be asked to vote on another EU treaty.


----------



## Ancutza (4 Aug 2009)

Coming back to Ireland to vote 'No' too...


----------



## lightswitch (4 Aug 2009)

Wow, what a turn around compared to the posts on here last time.  I was considering voting Yes this time having voted No last time.  Reason being I dont trust any of our politicans to run this Country.  Guess I'll have to give it much more thought.


----------



## Purple (4 Aug 2009)

Yes, what have they ever given us (other than forcing equality and environmental legislation on us... oh, and there were all the hand-outs... and the stability pact that kept us from going off the rails even more than we have ... and the membership of the Euro that's kept us out of Icelandic waters and effectively underwrites our bank guarantee).

Yes, maybe we should tell them to get stuffed again... and then go looking for another hand-out.


----------



## starlite68 (4 Aug 2009)

Purple said:


> Yes, maybe we should tell them to get stuffed again... and then go looking for another hand-out.


forget about the hand out....lets just tell them to get stuffed!


----------



## ollie323 (4 Aug 2009)

I for one feel very skeptical about the huge "yes" push and the lack of information about all of the treaty and how it changes how the eu works. I did some research on it last time and was not happy about how they want it to work. I voted no the last time and will do so again. Our "leaders" are starting to behave like dictators on this. Please respect our wishes.


----------



## Caveat (5 Aug 2009)

purple said:


> yes, what have they ever given us (other than forcing equality and environmental legislation on us... Oh, and there were all the hand-outs... And the stability pact that kept us from going off the rails even more than we have ... And the membership of the euro that's kept us out of icelandic waters and effectively underwrites our bank guarantee).
> 
> Yes, maybe we should tell them to get stuffed again... And then go looking for another hand-out.


 
+1


----------



## michaelm (5 Aug 2009)

Purple said:


> . .and the membership of the Euro that's kept us out of Icelandic waters and effectively underwrites our bank guarantee).


One might argue that membership of the Euro, and therefore the surrender of any control over our exchange rate and interest rate (which are managed to suit Germany and France), helped fuel the property bubble and has tied our hands in relation to competitiveness, with no option to devalue our currency.


----------



## starlite68 (5 Aug 2009)

ollie323 said:


> i for one feel very skeptical about the huge "yes" push and the lack of information about all of the treaty and how it changes how the eu works. I did some research on it last time and was not happy about how they want it to work. I voted no the last time and will do so again. Our "leaders" are starting to behave like dictators on this. Please respect our wishes.


+1


----------



## bond-007 (5 Aug 2009)

+1
Voting NO.


----------



## room305 (5 Aug 2009)

Purple said:


> ... and the membership of the Euro that's kept us out of Icelandic waters and effectively underwrites our bank guarantee).



I am starting to suspect this is as much a curse as a boon. The ECB repo pact (where Irish banks buy Irish sovereign bonds and repo them with the ECB for cash) creates the illusion that our insolvent banks can be kept on terminal life support. I don't think this helps anyone. Further the NAMA proposal has already received the nod from the ECB (it couldn't go ahead without them).

It's likely they don't realise the depths and risks Fianna Fail are willing to sink and to take to cover their own mistakes and that of their friends.



michaelm said:


> One might argue that membership of the Euro, and therefore the surrender of any control over our exchange rate and interest rate (which are managed to suit Germany and France), helped fuel the property bubble and has tied our hands in relation to competitiveness, with no option to devalue our currency.



We had plenty of other options available to us to forestall the bubble - enforce stricter reserve requirements for banks, restrict securitisations, enforce strict inflexible lending criteria (20% deposit, 3x single-earner max mortgages) -  and we (by which I mean the popular government) chose none of them. We actually chose every available option to prime the pump.

There's absolutely no reason to believe the gutless central bank would have raised interest rates (as our main trading partners were lowering theirs) during the growth of the housing bubble.


----------



## michaelm (6 Aug 2009)

room305 said:


> There's absolutely no reason to believe the gutless central bank would have raised interest rates (as our main trading partners were lowering theirs) during the growth of the housing bubble.


Well, there's no way of knowing.  Pre-€ Irish Central Bank rates (around 1998) were, if I recall, something around 6% . . which were then slashed to converge with European rates ahead of monetary union.  Given the proportion of trade we do with the US and the UK and other non-€ countries I don't believe that the 'benefits' or € membership compensate for the loss of control of our own exchange and interest rates.  I suspect that there was little thought put into joining the €, just the usual Irish political desire to be seen as 'committed Europeans'.


----------



## room305 (6 Aug 2009)

michaelm said:


> Well, there's no way of knowing.  Pre-€ Irish Central Bank rates (around 1998) were, if I recall, something around 6% . . which were then slashed to converge with European rates ahead of monetary union.  Given the proportion of trade we do with the US and the UK and other non-€ countries I don't believe that the 'benefits' or € membership compensate for the loss of control of our own exchange and interest rates.  I suspect that there was little thought put into joining the €, just the usual Irish political desire to be seen as 'committed Europeans'.



I'm not arguing whether it was a good decision to join the Euro or not (I don't believe it was). However, the central bank showed little inclination to slow the asset bubble using the tools at its disposal so it's a stretch to imagine they would have braved bucking a GLOBAL trend of central banks lowering interest rates and keeping them low for several years post 9/11. 

It's even more fantastical to then turn around and state that the ECB bears a large proportion of the blame for the bubble because they lowered interest rates. Despite the fact the Irish government encouraged the bubble (they thought it was a sign "de economy" was healthy bless 'em). Despite the fact the central bank took no action to halt insane, runaway lending (explosive broad money supply growth of over 30% year-on-year) beyond that of issuing vague reports alluding to the possibility of some small asset price falls in a "pessimistic scenario".

We would not have avoided the bubble by maintaining control of our currency, nor should the ECB take the blame for the Irish bubble.


----------



## michaelm (7 Aug 2009)

room305 said:


> However, the central bank showed little inclination to slow the asset bubble using the tools at its disposal so it's a stretch to imagine they would have braved bucking a GLOBAL trend of central banks lowering interest rates and keeping them low for several years post 9/11.


Maybe it is a 'stretch' but rates were much higher pre-€ and lending terms were much stricter before the advent of the Regulator in 2003 who I think was responsible for keeping an eye on bank lending policies (but maybe I'm mistaken there).





room305 said:


> It's even more fantastical to then turn around and state that the ECB bears a large proportion of the blame for the bubble because they lowered interest rates. Despite the fact the Irish government encouraged the bubble (they thought it was a sign "de economy" was healthy bless 'em).


I'm not sure how you distilled that; I don't blame the ECB for our problems; I blame Ahern and Cowen.


----------



## room305 (9 Aug 2009)

michaelm said:


> Maybe it is a 'stretch' but rates were much higher pre-€ and *lending terms were much stricter before the advent of the Regulator in 2003* who I think was responsible for keeping an eye on bank lending policies (but maybe I'm mistaken there).



A Fianna Fail creation you'll agree?

Rates may have been higher pre-€ but we followed the trends of the time. There is nothing to suggest we would have changed the pattern of a lifetime had we refused to join the Euro ergo there's no point considering as a significant issue in the formation of the housing bubble beyond noting that GLOBAL interest rates were (and still are) low.


----------



## z107 (9 Sep 2009)

> *Can someone please give me in layman's tears reasons to vote yes or no.*


*

*More and more I'm hearing people saying that they'll vote NO to punish the government. I'm still undecided myself. It seems like we'll end up punishing ourselves more than the government by voting NO.

However, with Nama looking like it's going to go ahead, maybe we should be linking the two together, as a sort of blackmail. The only chance to stop Fianna Fail before they do irreversible damage.

I'm starting to sway towards the No camp each day. A desperate attempt to say to Europe that Lisbon will never pass with Fianna Fail/yellow party in power.


----------



## DerKaiser (9 Sep 2009)

We voted no because we were a shower of arrogant ungrateful idiots who wanted to teach the establishment a lesson.

I'm 100% convinced there's people here who want to vote no to get rid of FF purely because of the income & pension levies imposed on them recently.  

If you think we're being hard done by as a result of these levies, giving the two fingers to Europe and getting rid of FF before NAMA or the budget will lead to a pretty unpleasant surprise.

The scenario I see playing out is this:

Lisbon gets defeated, FF lose power, NAMA does not go ahead, The banks and builders go bankrupt, liquidity seizes up, more businesses go bust, 800,000 people on the dole, IMF steps in, etc

We've been biting the EU hand for a while now, it's time to cut the ideological crap and accept the practicality of our situation i.e. as a nation we're on ECB life support.  It's not the time to p*ss off Europe any further


----------



## z107 (9 Sep 2009)

> I'm 100% convinced there's people here who want to vote no to get rid of FF purely because of the income & pension levies imposed on them recently.


If I was to take the stance of voting NO to oust the government, it wouldn't _just_ be because of the (relatively trivial) levies. It would be for the following:
- www.insolvencyJournal.ie (Check out the figures)
- six and a half thousand companies dissolved in just the first half of this year.
- Usual 'soft' corruption of FF
- Bankrupt banks
- and of course the whole €90 billion (or whatever crazy billion amount) Nama thing. A billion is a huge amount. 1000,000,000. How can a country of 4.5million possibly afford this?
- http://www.financedublin.com/debtclock.php
- The complete mismanagement of the boom and turning it into a devastating bubble.

DerKaiser - would you vote for FF? 

(This 





> The banks and builders go bankrupt, liquidity seizes up, more businesses go bust, 800,000 people on the dole


Is pretty much happening anyway.)

At the moment, I really would rather Ireland was governed from Europe. However, I also fear fianna fail. They truly are dangerous right now.


----------



## DerKaiser (9 Sep 2009)

umop3p!sdn said:


> DerKaiser - would you vote for FF?



I am hoping we don't have to vote in a general election for at least 6 months until the following are implemented

1) NAMA - with as penal a discount as necessary (i.e. if it means nationalisation so be it)
2) The McCarthy Report
3) A budget aimed at reducing the 2010 deficit below (€15bn)

I don't know if we'll get any of the above with FF but I do know we'll get none of the above with no one in power


----------



## z107 (9 Sep 2009)

I forgot to mention.
I also have this inner conflict going on. One side of me would really like FF to stay in power for the next few months. The pain really should be associated with those that caused it.


----------



## D8Lady (9 Sep 2009)

umop3p!sdn said:


> I forgot to mention.
> One side of me would really like FF to stay in power for the next few months. The pain really should be associated with those that caused it.



It kills me to say this but I agree that FF should stay in power until at least the pain of the budget is felt. 

Reason being, anyone in power will have to bring in hideous cuts. If there were a change now, come the next election, FF will be saying how those nasty FG/Lab/whoever brought in tough budget, so vote FF again an' we'll make it all right. 

Voters need to understand the consequences of voting FF for years or not voting at all. Hopefully, FF will never again be in power.


----------



## D8Lady (9 Sep 2009)

And is any else troubled by the UK-Independence party campaigning in this jurisdiction? I deeply resent it. 
We have enough nutters here without having to import them.


----------



## Sylvester3 (9 Sep 2009)

I would be quite happy for Ireland to become a part of a greater Federal Europe - it makes sense for me that eurozone countries work together to become a greater economic force. Having been raised in Northern Ireland I always agreed with John Humes assessment that it was pointless arguing over Ulster when we were all going to be part of Europe one day.

So I will be voting for Lisbon with the hope that it will lead to a true federation.


----------



## DerKaiser (10 Sep 2009)

D8Lady said:


> Voters need to understand the consequences of voting FF for years or not voting at all.


 
Most sensible thing I've seen. Almost 40% of people voted FF for a 5 year term, there's no point in half of them whinging now because they want to change their mind after 2 years.

Less than 30% voted for the only sure way of ousting FF i.e. by voting FG. A vote for the greens, labour or independents (particularly independents!) was never guaranteed to oust FF. Also you may as well spoil your vote as vote for SF because no one will go in with them.

So in another way over 70% did not vote to oust FF 2 years ago but want to throw their toys out of the pram now if they're not allowed another vote!


----------



## redstar (10 Sep 2009)

Deja vu 

Two friends have told me they are voting no because ....
o Min wage will be 1.84 if Lisbon is passed
o There will be conscription and Ireland will get involved in wars
o Ireland will lose its 'neutrality'

I really despair at the gullibility of people who believe such nonsense.


----------



## Betsy Og (10 Sep 2009)

First time out it used to annoy me that no-one talked about the treaty itself as a document, just rabbitted on about how "Europe was good to us, we'd be an ungrateful shower", "Remeber WWII, we'd still be at it but for the EU".

However, given how much our own have convinced us that this is a "you're either in or you're out" vote on the EU project, I think they have also convinced the rest of the world (whoever's bothered I mean) that that is what the vote represents. 

So, unfortunately, I think voting No amounts to economic suicide and on that basis alone I'll vote Yes (was away last time so didnt vote). Will post other musings later in support of a yes vote.


----------



## bond-007 (10 Sep 2009)

Voting no purely to give Biffo the bums rush.


----------



## Caveat (10 Sep 2009)

Betsy Og said:


> First time out it used to annoy me that no-one talked about the treaty itself as a document, just rabbitted on about how "Europe was good to us, we'd be an ungrateful shower", "Remeber WWII, we'd still be at it but for the EU".
> 
> However, given how much our own have convinced us that this is a "you're either in or you're out" vote on the EU project, I think they have also convinced the rest of the world (whoever's bothered I mean) that that is what the vote represents.
> 
> So, unfortunately, I think voting No amounts to economic suicide and on that basis alone I'll vote Yes (was away last time so didnt vote). Will post other musings later in support of a yes vote.


 
+1

Added to that, those parties/individuals who are pushing for a no vote are the same people I wouldn't trust or look to for advice on anything.


----------



## Betsy Og (10 Sep 2009)

Caveat said:


> +1
> 
> Added to that, those parties/individuals who are pushing for a no vote are the same people I wouldn't trust or look to for advice on anything.


 
Yes, I was going to mention that. All mainstream parties are Pro, on the anti side you are pretty much left with a lunatic fringe. I did have some time for Ganly and his views (whatever about alleged hidden agendas or alleged murky background), however even that semblance of coherence is gone.

Also, it seems this time that the big irrelevancies from first time out are substantially dealt with (they wouldnt have influneced me first time either), but I'm referring to conscription & abortion. The new scare tactic re the min wage seems to have been tackled immediately so I dont think that will be a big factor.

My reservations, which I'm willing to overcome, are: 1) I dont want a federal Europe, I think co-operation (primarily economic, judicial as necessary) is sufficient, the less Brussels formal "rule" the better. Now I know Lisbon gives a direct role to National parliments for the first time so maybe that is a balance 
& my second reservation, which is probably a vaguer version of point 1 is: 2) I'm a bit concerned about soverignty ... looking ahead to 2016 I wonder will we be asking ourselves how, in 100 years, we've swapped one 'overlord' for another, & lost our power of self determination. Point 2 is a bit more distant and vague so I'm not inclined to think that should sway anyone (any I dont think the EU will ever reach Overlord status in Irish life). 

As regards point 1, I dont think a Yes or a No to this treaty is going to be any sort of definitive determinant of how the EU will ultimately go. I think as a nation we need to suit ourselves a bit more, currently we immediately adopt the strictest version of regulations with gusto, while others are a bit more circumspect. I've no problem in saying that anything beyond the 26 counties (with a nod to the 6) I'm not too pushed about, if some particular regulation doesnt suit us then we should adopt at the latest time in the weakest form, rather that trying to play the "good Europeans".


----------



## Mouldy (10 Sep 2009)

If any one says to me “I voted no because I didn’t know what I was voting for” or “I voted no because I wanted to send the government a message” I will make a mental note that they have an IQ less than 60.

Unless you are homeless or illiterate, there is no way you could not know that main points of the Lisbon 2, including its bulls*it, not binding declarations regarding “issues” which Libertas, SF, Coir and Kathy Sinnott raised last time round which had nothing to do with the treaty then and have nothing to do with the treaty now.

This is because every house in the country will receive at least two (count them, two) leaflets, one from the dept of Foreign Affairs and one from the Referendum commission explaining in relatively clear terms the changes that Lisbon is proposing to make to the current EU structure. There is enough info in these leaflets which will take no more than 20 minutes to read, to help make an informed choice. 
It should also be clear that voting no to teach the government a lesson is as smart as covering your a*se in petrol and lighting a match. If you want to teach them a lesson, vote them out the next time round. This is not a vote on the government. If people can’t make the distinction, they should stay at home and watch the Eastenders omnibus.

It’s also ironic that people would reject Lisbon to damage the Government. We can’t stop (or start) NAMA. We can’t control the budget. But we can, as the Sovereign of Ireland, ratify the Lisbon treaty. The Lisbon vote is the only real power that the people have. To mis-use it to teach the government a lesson is to make ourselves worse than them, to take way any moral ground we have to complain. And it would mean that from a society point of view, this government truly is of, by and for the people.

M


----------



## Ancutza (10 Sep 2009)

> “I voted no because I didn’t know what I was voting for”


Another take on that might be why would anyone of right mind vote in something which hadn't been properly explained to them.  That, to my mind, would smack of a below average IQ.  Following the herd etc.  Bear in mind that the main political parties, herds for want of a better word, have led us off a cliff.  I, for one, refuse to follow them or their empty words anymore. 

We already voted once against Lisbon.  Why do we have to do it again?  I've said it before I'll say it again, democracy doesn't always mean you get the answer you want but it IS a majority answer.

The EU has continued to work just fine since the last irish 'no' vote and will continue to work just fine if there is a second 'no' vote.

So I'm going to vote 'no' to Lisbon and if the current administration survive that to get to the next general election as the 'government' then I'll vote them out there too.


----------



## z107 (10 Sep 2009)

> This is because every house in the country will receive at least two (count them, two) leaflets, one from the dept of Foreign Affairs and one from the Referendum commission explaining in relatively clear terms the changes that Lisbon is proposing to make to the current EU structure. There is enough info in these leaflets which will take no more than 20 minutes to read, to help make an informed choice.


I saw these leaflets and didn't bother reading them. They're probably in the recycling by now.
I doubted that the Lisbon treaty and all its ramifications could be condensed into an unbiased leaflet.
They looked boring too.


----------



## starlite68 (10 Sep 2009)

Ancutza said:


> Another take on that might be why would anyone of right mind vote in something which hadn't been properly explained to them. That, to my mind, would smack of a below average IQ. Following the herd etc. Bear in mind that the main political parties, herds for want of a better word, have led us off a cliff. I, for one, refuse to follow them or their empty words anymore.
> 
> We already voted once against Lisbon. Why do we have to do it again? I've said it before I'll say it again, democracy doesn't always mean you get the answer you want but it IS a majority answer.
> 
> ...


+1...good post


----------



## Betsy Og (10 Sep 2009)

Ancutza said:


> Bear in mind that the main political parties, herds for want of a better word, have led us off a cliff. I, for one, refuse to follow them or their empty words anymore.
> 
> We already voted once against Lisbon. Why do we have to do it again? I've said it before I'll say it again, democracy doesn't always mean you get the answer you want but it IS a majority answer.
> 
> ...


 
I genuinely think it would help the country if you could contain your zeal for revenge for a more appropriate opportunity.

I also think that anyone who in, broad brush terms, blames "politicians" cos "they're all the same" is either too lazy to distinguish or is a conspiracy theorist. e.g. in what sense have FG or Labour led us off a cliff?

Do you really believe all our main parties are in cahoots with Brussels for some unknown reason?, that they collectively are trying to hoodwink the entire nation into doing something that is against our interest? 

If there are 2 explanations for something, one fantastical and one ordinary then chances are the ordinary explanation is the correct one.

Re democracy, its no surprise that the EU would like us to vote again or that the government should try again, after all any political party with any significant representation (and the dreaded meejah) are pro the treaty so why wouldnt they want it ratified & call for a 2nd chance for same. When theres a Yes vote wont that be democracy too, and unless our politicians clamour for a 3rd vote then so be it.

Re what would happen to the EU/Ireland if we vote No, on the one hand I'd be interested in seeing how this would pan out as I dont think, at an EU structures level, it would be the end of the world, there'd be some patch up and life would continue. However, why I wouldnt like it to get to that situation, is that we would have then done ourselves significant economic harm and that is my overriding concern and reason to vote Yes.


----------



## starlite68 (10 Sep 2009)

Betsy Og said:


> Re what would happen to the EU/Ireland if we vote No, on the one hand I'd be interested in seeing how this would pan out as I dont think, at an EU structures level, it would be the end of the world, there'd be some patch up and life would continue. However, why I wouldnt like it to get to that situation, is that we would have then done ourselves significant economic harm and that is my overriding concern and reason to vote Yes.


in other words,you are saying that you are scared to vote no, in case the bigwigs in europe will hold it against us!


----------



## Latrade (11 Sep 2009)

Ancutza said:


> Another take on that might be why would anyone of right mind vote in something which hadn't been properly explained to them. That, to my mind, would smack of a below average IQ. Following the herd etc. Bear in mind that the main political parties, herds for want of a better word, have led us off a cliff. I, for one, refuse to follow them or their empty words anymore.
> 
> We already voted once against Lisbon. Why do we have to do it again? I've said it before I'll say it again, democracy doesn't always mean you get the answer you want but it IS a majority answer.
> 
> ...


 
I see your point, however is it reason to vote no?

As hard as it will be for every single voter, this is not a decision on the Government, it's about the future of Europe and Ireland's role in this Europe. 

My point being a knee-jerk 'no' based on bias against a some political parties or that they haven't explained it enough to you is as bad as the herd immediately signing up for a 'yes' vote.

While the state does have a responsibility to explain and educate us in the this, I think we have to also take some responsibility to seek the information and to make up our own minds. 

Last time it was very poorly handled, but I don't remember too many people actually going out and trying to find out what it was really about.

I'm still largely undecided. I can't deny the second vote issue always annoys me. I mean, I defend the 'mandate' for the government on the basis of that is the result of a general election, I can hardly be happy with this repetitive voting until we get it right.

Like all things there's give and take in the treaty. I don't think the view of Ireland's taken enough, it's time to give back is such a wise argument, but overall a stable and efficient Europe is good for Ireland. 

The fact that it is fringe (even extreme) political parties that have the objections is most telling. Though I'm not sure how we equate the right-wing saying this creates a socialist, secular paradise with the left-wing saying it creates a neo-con nirvana. 

All I can say is don't make rash decisions, look around and read up. Try to avoid those sources of information that may have some bias to them and hidden agenda, but at least hear everyone out. 

I don't however agree that it is the sole responsibility of the state to educate us, we have some responsibility to do our own research on this too.


----------



## Betsy Og (11 Sep 2009)

starlite68 said:


> in other words,you are saying that you are scared to vote no, in case the bigwigs in europe will hold it against us!


 
No, because we've convinced the world that a No vote means we're turning our backs on Europe. If you were head of a US corporation looking for a route into Europe wouldnt you be mad to go to a flaky Ireland that seems to be slowly dis-engaging from the EU? (thats the picture being painted, wish it was otherwise but might as well deal with reality)

We get a disproportionate amount of FDI and that means jobs. Maybe last time we voted we thought we were strong enough to go it alone, obviously that aint so. 

So do we want an Ireland that's at work or not? No one is comfortable that we've found ourselves in a gun-to-head situation, but wishing it was otherwise or that someone is going to give us a medal for "standing up to the EU" (if thats how you see it) are not real world.


----------



## RMCF (11 Sep 2009)

I think we are going to see the Gov ramp up their scare tactics over the coming weeks to get the 'DONT KNOWs' to vote yes.

We will hear a lot of "it'll cost us more jobs" lines - and considering people are scared ****less about losing their jobs they may just vote yes if they are unsure.


----------



## Teatime (11 Sep 2009)

Ancutza said:


> The EU has continued to work just fine since the last irish 'no' vote and will continue to work just fine if there is a second 'no' vote.
> 
> So I'm going to vote 'no' to Lisbon and if the current administration survive that to get to the next general election as the 'government' then I'll vote them out there too.


 
Very progressive thinking indeed. I travel a fair bit to Europe thru work, mainly Germany, and our No vote has come up in discussions a few times and not always in a nice way. They cant understand our stance and how paranoid we are. This is not a scare tactic but I am convinced that a No vote will affect contracts, jobs etc.

If you are going to vote No, do it for the right reason.


----------



## Caveat (11 Sep 2009)

Teatime said:


> ...I travel a fair bit to Europe thru work, mainly Germany, and our No vote has come up in discussions a few times and not always in a nice way. They cant understand our stance and how paranoid we are.


 
I have experienced the same thing. Many Germans (+Dutch/Italians/Swedes...) I have contact with seem to view our NO vote with a mixture of confusion and thinly disguised dersion.


----------



## michaelm (11 Sep 2009)

DerKaiser said:


> We voted no because we were a shower of arrogant ungrateful idiots who wanted to teach the establishment a lesson.


That's a ridiculous statement.  I voted No because I believe we've ceded enough sovereignty to the EU and I don't want a Federal Europe.





DerKaiser said:


> It's not the time to p*ss off Europe any further


Indeed.  A sound basis to vote Yes .  By 'Europe' I assume you mean the EU plutocracy.





Teatime said:


> If you are going to vote No, do it for the right reason.


We can agree on that sound advise.  One good reason to vote No, even for those who voted Yes last time, is democratic principle.  We said No, our Government should have told the EU No, and the EU should have followed their own rules and scrapped the treaty.  EU structures should exist for the benefit of member nations' citizens and not for the benefit of EU career politicians and civil servants.


----------



## lightswitch (11 Sep 2009)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574404643114251588.html

Ganley is back by the looks of things


----------



## z104 (11 Sep 2009)

redstar said:


> Deja vu
> 
> Two friends have told me they are voting no because ....
> o Min wage will be 1.84 if Lisbon is passed
> ...


 

If anything the whole European project will prevent wars. Do people not study history at School anymore. 2 world wars because of a divided Europe. I say bring it on. Vote yes.


----------



## Betsy Og (11 Sep 2009)

Niallers said:


> If anything the whole European project will prevent wars. Do people not study history at School anymore. 2 world wars because of a divided Europe. I say bring it on. Vote yes.


 
While I'm pro Yes I just dont buy that theory, the world has moved on anyway - plus the entire EU wont disintegrate if we vote No. Its just that it gives the impression there must be v little to recommend a yes vote if thats a suggested reason to vote yes (Vote Yes btw )


----------



## Latrade (11 Sep 2009)

Betsy Og said:


> While I'm pro Yes I just dont buy that theory, the world has moved on anyway - plus the entire EU wont disintegrate if we vote No. Its just that it gives the impression there must be v little to recommend a yes vote if thats a suggested reason to vote yes (Vote Yes btw )


 
I think Europe was a bit annoyed at the last Bosnia situation where it couldn't mobilise quick enough because of the American stake in NATO. While it wouldn't have prevented conflict, there's a chance things may not have escalated to the situation they did. And despite what people think it was only because of some very honerable begging from Tony Blair that eventually got support.

I think Europe was concerned that it couldn't move to resolve issues within it's own borders without the consent of America. While it makes sense practically and, as we've found these last few years, morally, to not have armies at the mercy of the American Military, it's another of those "sensisble" issues that require a new agreement. 

Though of course, the American military is a bit upset and fearful that a unified European army would have a bit more clout globally than them and so have been trying to nix this part for a while...did someone say Ganley is back?


----------



## schmile (11 Sep 2009)

Voted no last time
Will be voting no again this time. 
If it goes again I will be voting no
Chances are it will keep going until they get a yes but whats the point in having a vote if they are not happy with the way you vote anyway and try to get you to do it again and give in. I for one won't be giving in.


----------



## bond-007 (11 Sep 2009)

Voting no again for the same reason. It is the principle of the thing.


----------



## Betsy Og (11 Sep 2009)

bond-007 said:


> Voting no again for the same reason. It is the principle of the thing.


 
As a matter of interest what is the reason?


----------



## bond-007 (11 Sep 2009)

It was defeated the first time. They are riding roughshod over the will of the people.

No means no!


----------



## Teatime (11 Sep 2009)

Irish people like to say No. We like to break the rules and rebel against the establishment. It's part of our psyche. Even tho the Yes campaign had all-party support last time out, it was defeated, mainly due to Ganley and Govt overconfidence.

I think a second No vote will be detrimental to this country but I do acknowledge that the govt has handled it badly.

I will vote Yes and hope it is passed.


----------



## starlite68 (11 Sep 2009)

No last time,and No this time from me.


----------



## Purple (11 Sep 2009)

Did anyone hear yer man from the Corrs on Matt Cooper this evening? The No campaign must dread hearing him talking rubbish.


----------



## Yachtie (11 Sep 2009)

Latrade said:


> I think Europe was a bit annoyed at the last Bosnia situation where it couldn't mobilise quick enough because of the American stake in NATO. While it wouldn't have prevented conflict, there's a chance things may not have escalated to the situation they did. And despite what people think it was only because of some very honerable begging from Tony Blair that eventually got support.
> 
> I think Europe was concerned that it couldn't move to resolve issues within it's own borders without the consent of America. While it makes sense practically and, as we've found these last few years, morally, to not have armies at the mercy of the American Military, it's another of those "sensisble" issues that require a new agreement.
> 
> Though of course, the American military is a bit upset and fearful that a unified European army would have a bit more clout globally than them and so have been trying to nix this part for a while...did someone say Ganley is back?


 
European unity 'on paper' and without any practical power in the early 90's could not stop or control the biggest bloodshed on its own doorstep. This was and still is a huge issue. Current EU is a massive bureaucracy, struggling to implement any initiatives accross the board while 'the new Europe' would have more control over pan-European law, economy, law enforcement and would be in a better position to secure equal rights for all EU citizens. Furthermore, Europeans traditionally fought among themselves so unless any part of Europe was invaded by aliens or people from any other continent (won't discriminate), the chances of conscription are very slim.

My pet peeve on the whole Lisbon issue is this 'Germans would have 17% voting power while Irish would have 0.3%' (or something similar I saw on a poster). There are 4.5m Irish and 82m Germans, do your own maths!!! It's besides the point but in the last 5 - 6 decades, Germans ran their country in a much more sustainable and prudent manner than Irish did so giving them more power may not be such a bad thing.


----------



## onekeano (11 Sep 2009)

Teatime said:


> Irish people like to say No. We like to break the rules and rebel against the establishment. It's part of our psyche. Even tho the Yes campaign had all-party support last time out, it was defeated, mainly due to Ganley and Govt overconfidence.
> 
> I think a second No vote will be detrimental to this country but I do acknowledge that the govt has handled it badly.
> 
> I will vote Yes and hope it is passed.



Completely agree with this but as I said elsewhere earlier the only certain way to make sure Lisbon passes (and I hope it does...) would be for Cowan to say he would commit to a general election if Lisbon is passed rather than leave people to assume there will be an election if it is rejected.......... Come on Cowan, do the right thing for once.

Roy


----------



## starlite68 (12 Sep 2009)

onekeano said:


> ........ Come on Cowan, do the right thing for once.
> 
> Roy


cowan would never agree to that...like all  politicians his ego is too big!


----------



## ACA (12 Sep 2009)

bond-007 said:


> It was defeated the first time. They are riding roughshod over the will of the people.
> 
> No means no!


 

Same reason that I'm saying no again Bond. Makes me angry how it can be decided that we didn't mean no the last time - like we're small children who don't understand. Someone else mentioned 'nannying state'.... about sums it up!

Makes you wonder if it is rejected again....what will be the tactics then?? Reword, rename and go again, maybe?


----------



## BillK (12 Sep 2009)

"Honourable" and "Tony Blair" is an oxymoron.


----------



## Teatime (12 Sep 2009)

Controversial I know but I think the next referendum should be whether we Irish can participate in any future referendums! When I heard people's reasoning for voting YES and NO in the last Lisbon referendum, I dispaired and the thought struck me that most people are too naive and too easily taken in by biased individuals on these complex issues. Like most of Europe, we should leave these important decisions to our elected representatives and public servants - sure they know what is good for us ...


----------



## Ancutza (12 Sep 2009)

> Like most of Europe, we should leave these important decisions to our elected representatives and public servants - sure they know what is good for us ...



Having said already that you intend to vote 'Yes' now you _really_ are scaring the bejaysus out of me!  If you just had a quick think about what you last posted then you would find 1,000+ reasons to vote 'No'.


----------



## ollie323 (17 Sep 2009)

Here's a link to a reader friendly version of the treaty, or rather, The Treaty Of The European Union. 
Here's something else that may be of interest:http://eurealist.co.uk/archives/676
And another link, with some interesting reading that i don't see much of in Irish papers:http://11sixtynine.blogsome.com/2009/06/20/lisbon-treatyguarantees-useless-vote-no-in-october-2009/

Does anyone not notice that it's mostly people in power of some sort that are pushing a yes vote. What have they to gain from this, i wonder? Hmmmm......profits maybe? Meanwhile we are treated like mushrooms. 
Ireland has been losing it's identity for a long time but i fear this will only serve to speed up that process. God help us!

I'm voting no AGAIN and will continue to do so.


----------



## Latrade (17 Sep 2009)

ollie323 said:


> Here's a link to a reader friendly version of the treaty, or rather, The Treaty Of The European Union.
> Here's something else that may be of interest:http://eurealist.co.uk/archives/676
> And another link, with some interesting reading that i don't see much of in Irish papers:http://11sixtynine.blogsome.com/2009/06/20/lisbon-treatyguarantees-useless-vote-no-in-october-2009/


 
Ha, great use of non-partisan exceptionally researched links there. One using 54 year-old quotes from one, greatly ignored, individual to justify their fears of a New World Order, one who clearly doesn't understand what the guarantees actually mean (and obviously has no concept or understanding of International Law) and the plain text version of the treaty is brought to you courtesy of the European Neo-Con movement (interestingly founded with great support by the Ulster Unionists...).

Be careful who you get into bed with while trying to bring down the government.


----------



## z107 (17 Sep 2009)

I was king of undecided, despite voting No the last time.
After yesterday, I've now made up my mind and am definitely going to vote No.

Reason: It's our only slim chance of stopping NAMA.

There'll be another treaty. Especially when the eurocrats realise why people voted No.


----------



## Ceist Beag (17 Sep 2009)

umop3p!sdn said:


> I was king of undecided, despite voting No the last time.
> After yesterday, I've now made up my mind and am definitely going to vote No.
> 
> Reason: It's our only slim chance of stopping NAMA.
> ...



I suppose everyone is entitled to their reasons for voting yes or no but I find this a strange reasoning I must admit! I would have thought people would have got the idea now that a vote on Lisbon is an important vote on the future shape of the EU and should not be messed with just to get some other point across - especially such a watered down point as the above! If you want to vote no, surely you should be doing so on the basis of the future direction you wish the EU to take - not for any other reason. If more people take your line of thinking then there is absolutely no chance that eurocrats (or anyone else for the reason) would understand why a couple of million people voted yes or no!


----------



## Latrade (17 Sep 2009)

Ceist Beag said:


> I suppose everyone is entitled to their reasons for voting yes or no but I find this a strange reasoning I must admit! I would have thought people would have got the idea now that a vote on Lisbon is an important vote on the future shape of the EU and should not be messed with just to get some other point across - especially such a watered down point as the above! If you want to vote no, surely you should be doing so on the basis of the future direction you wish the EU to take - not for any other reason. If more people take your line of thinking then there is absolutely no chance that eurocrats (or anyone else for the reason) would understand why a couple of million people voted yes or no!


 
Well said. There has yet to be any real reason for voting no other than a vote against the government.


----------



## Shawady (17 Sep 2009)

Latrade said:


> Well said. There has yet to be any real reason for voting no other than a vote against the government.


 
The most recent polls suggest Lisbon will be passed even though this is the most unpopular government since polling began.
My opinion is that it will be easily passed as this time around there are too many poeple fearful what the consequences would be if we voted No.


----------



## DerKaiser (17 Sep 2009)

michaelm said:


> We said No, our Government should have told the EU No, and the EU should have followed their own rules and scrapped the treaty.


 
Well what if we vote yes this time?

How would you interpret that?

We've voted no before and then voted yes e.g. Nice & Divorce

What does that say about us?

I fully respect the reason you voted no, personlly though I believe not every no vote the last time was as principled as yours


----------



## Ancutza (17 Sep 2009)

> Well what if we vote yes this time?
> 
> How would you interpret that?
> 
> ...



Why exactly are we voting again??? When does 'No' not mean 'No'? What the whole thing says is that our elected officials and the EU commission have very scant, if any, regard to the democratically expressed will of the irish electorate.  Frankly the whole debacle is a disgrace of the most fetid type.

We are also too young of a nation state to so readily sign over our sovereignty to a federal europe.  Much of what Lisbon is about is about the Germans achieving 'democratically' what they failed twice to do in the last century militarily.  Whilst they're at it they'll bring along their new found best mates the French and we'll all, slowly but surely, find ourselves in another national socialist mess.  I always was one for a good conspiracy theory. 

Once again, as I've already stated, the EU has worked just fine since the last irish 'No' vote and will continue to do so after the next one.

Still voting 'No'.


----------



## Ancutza (17 Sep 2009)

The other reason to vote 'No' to Lisbon is the danger of Cowen and his monkeys, buoyed up by a 'Yes' vote, sticking around long enough to ram NAMA down our necks. Much as I agree with those who say the two issues should be treated separately they are, unfortunately, hopelessly intertwined.

50 billion for 70 billion of toxic, sweaty, horrible debt? What a bargain!  If it were 10 billion it would still be too dear for me, my kid and her children to bear.


----------



## ollie323 (17 Sep 2009)

Didn't the French and Dutch vote no to lisbon too? Did Charlie Mc Creevy not say that the vast majority of people would vote no if they knew, in clear english, what the treaty was about?
Here's another link to some treaty information:http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87518
And some more, about the Poles not ratifying it either:http://voteno2lisbon.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/fall-in-poll-support-for-lisbon-treaty-in-poland/


----------



## so-crates (17 Sep 2009)

umop3p!sdn said:


> Especially when the eurocrats realise why people voted No.



Please enlighten me, exactly how does that work? Have they added a "Tell us why you voted the way you voted" question to the ballot paper that will invalidate your paper if it isn't filled with a reason? Is it some sort of Vulcan mind meld with the few hundred thousand no-voters in Ireland? Or a sucking of thoughts from the general populace of Europe?

I maintained at the vote on the first treaty and I do so again. If you really and truly believe that Ireland should not ratify the Lisbon Treaty and should block the rest of the EU doing so then by all means and with an unsullied conscience vote a clear and decisive NO. If you don't know what you want to do or (as is clearly the case in this thread) want to vote no for any other reason (especially that of punishing the government) then spoil your vote. Make it as clear as possible that you are not comfortable to vote yes but don't necessarily want to reverse Ireland out of the EU to some extent. Spoilt votes do get counted. A large number of spoils would ring more sensible alarm bells since they would indicate the true sentiment as opposed to the obvious conclusion that gets drawn otherwise, that all naysayers are in thrall to the UKIP/Sinn Fein/Cóir/Éirigí/Socialist Party/Libertas/etc weird alliance of interests.


----------



## Latrade (18 Sep 2009)

Ancutza said:


> We are also too young of a nation state to so readily sign over our sovereignty to a federal europe. Much of what Lisbon is about is about the Germans achieving 'democratically' what they failed twice to do in the last century militarily. Whilst they're at it they'll bring along their new found best mates the French and we'll all, slowly but surely, find ourselves in another national socialist mess. I always was one for a good conspiracy theory.


 
Just a small question: if, as everyone says, this is effectively handing over power to Germany, how come Germany hasn't ratified it yet? You'd have thought they'd have been the first in line considering it's so good for them. Or could it be this whole handing over power to the Germans and French is merely xenophobic claptrap?


----------



## Latrade (18 Sep 2009)

ollie323 said:


> Here's another link to some treaty information:http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87518




Charlie was right, because we end up with statements like this from the reliable indymedia:




> The Lisbon Treaty:
> 1. is an incomprehensible constitution, therefore by most voters it can only be signed in blind faith
> (note: most of the advocates of the treaty admit that they have NOT read the text.)
> 2. as a constitution entails the loss of national sovereignty
> ...


 
*Points 1-3: *
It isn’t a Constitution. If student socialists or hyperactive neo-cons do not understand the legislative difference between a Treaty and a Constitution, then there really is no point continuing. And it’s misleading to say the text is “virtually the same”. The text that *remains* is virtually the same, but it’s the text that was removed and changed that makes this an entirely different thing. 

Compare these made up statements (not part of the Treaty btw): 

“Member states *will* implement a system of preventing anyone who uses indymedia as a source of informed decision from their electoral register.”

“Member states *may* implement a system of preventing anyone who uses indymedia as a source of informed decision from their electoral register.”

Now, strictly speaking they’re virtually identical, just one word separates them, yet they have two completely different outcomes and emphasises. If you just count the words and compare them, the *remaining *text is very similar. If you actually look at what was taken out and what has been added, you can see the difference.

It’s also very clear that there is no loss of national sovereignty. In fact, if you took the time to read through the text and ample explanations  (not from these kinds of sources) you’d see that national sovereignty not only remains as it is, but that also they’ve added stuff to mean that individual nations *and their citizens* have a greater say in the democratic process of the Parliament and Commission.

It can not cheat us out of referendums. I’d have thought the quite clear statement referencing local court precedent, case law, etc remains. Each and every change to the treaty will have to go through another referendum here.

*Point 4:*
What’s so undemocratic about holding a referendum on which each citizen over voting age has a chance to influence? Isn’t that democracy? If not, what is?

*Point 5 and 6:*
The bulk of the text is all about making the current system of governance and decision making more efficient and more democratic. As Europe has expanded, the old system just cannot cope. It’s like trying to play chess to the rules of hurling. The current system is entirely inefficient and undemocratic.

However, in order to achieve this new efficiency and efficacy there are some compromises. Yes, the change to the voting structure appears to mean Ireland loses immediate on how much its vote counts for. But you cannot argue that a system that means all states have a proportionally distributed vote isn’t fair. However, while we lose on this, it doesn’t mean that the larger states can steamroller in everything that’s good for them. The majority vote system means that if 5 countries disagree, it is shelved. While we lose something on how “valuable” our vote is, Ireland still has a lot of friends in Europe (we are held in very high regard among the ascension states for example), plus we have a lot of shared concerns and values (though you might not like it) with the UK. It won’t be difficult for common interests to send things back to the drawing board if so concerned. 

Again, another “score” for democracy is that we, the people, me, you and everyone else can actually petition Europe to introduce or change new legislation. We can’t even do that here! If we get enough signatories, citizens can change legislation. Once again, if that doesn’t come under the banner of “it’s more democratic you myopic bunch of lefties” what does?

And, just as a further example of democracy, new legislation gets to sit with member states for longer before feedback. This might not sound like a big deal, but it is. This additional time means even more opportunity for *public* consultation and feedback. 

For all those who believe this hyperbolic tripe. Give me one example of a piece of European Legislation you personally have petitioned, consulted, made representations on? This right that is supposed to be going, when have you ever exercised it? But more importantly, now tell just exactly how is it that by making this system more accountable to the public it makes it undemocratic?

*Point 7:*

*sigh* I’m getting tired of these factions telling me I should read the Treaty when it is clear they haven’t. The Nice Treaty (the one we voted Yes to) reduces the number of commissioners. That has to happen next year unless…wait for it…unless Lisbon is ratified. If Lisbon is ratified, there is no reduction in the number of commissioners. Ok being honest: we won’t lose a commissioner for now. It will be reviewed in 5 years, but again, these commissioners don’t exactly help the process and there are far too many on to nice and junket doing far too little. The new process means there will be a set number, but their make-up will be rotated, so we will have a commissioner, then we won’t, then after a bit we will.

I don’t understand the hang up over a commissioner anyway. They’re nothing more than a glorified social partnership member of a state agency’s board of directors (on better expenses than most directors except at a certain agency that deals with training and work placement of the unemployed). The main thing is that like the social partners, they are forbidden to actually make specific representations for who they represent. All their decisions have to be in the interest of Europe, not Ireland. 

*Point 8:*
You mean the lefties are saying that an extreme neo-con think tank is an alternative? Do they really want to open that can of worms? Do we want European policy dictated by British Tories, UUP members, Austrian conservatives and the more racist elements of Denmark, setting European policy?


----------



## michaelm (18 Sep 2009)

Latrade said:


> There has yet to be any real reason for voting no other than a vote against the government.


Indeed, do you even read your own posts before you submit them?  

Valid reasons to vote No include . . Democratic principle (we said No already) . . the Treaty is deliberately unintelligible (as claimed by it's author) . . Ireland's voting strength is diluted while that of bigger states is hugely increased just as we surrender many more policy areas to QMV . . the Treaty creates, for the first time, an EU State of which we all will become citizens . . the attached Charter of Rights supersedes our rights as set out in the Irish Constitution and this Charter will be interpreted by the European Court of Justice . . we will be unable to reverse any unexpected or unwelcome interpretation by the ECJ via referendum, as we can currently do with Irish Supreme Court decisions . . we have ceded enough sovereignty to the EU already . . there are many more reasons to vote this Treaty down and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.





DerKaiser said:


> Well what if we vote yes this time? How would you interpret that?


I expect we will.  I would interpret it as a victory for fear over democracy.  We will have sleep walked the peoples of Europe into a Federal Europe with foundations of sand.





DerKaiser said:


> We've voted no before and then voted yes e.g. Nice & Divorce.  What does that say about us?


There were nine years between the two Divorce referenda.  So maybe attitudes change over time.  The Government spent heavily with taxpayers money promoting a Yes, which later led to the McKenna judgment.  It was carried by only 9,000 votes, one per ballot box, which shows the importance of voting.  Of course the government had to mess it up with a fudge that is 'no fault' divorce, which is a nonsense.  IMHO divorce has done more harm than good.  

With Nice there were changes made and there was a general election between the two votes so that the government could claim a mandate to rerun it.  I suppose our Yes to Nice 2 might say we're malleable.





DerKaiser said:


> I fully respect the reason you voted no, personally though I believe not every no vote the last time was as principled as yours


No doubt, and the same would be true for Yes voters.  But it is irrelevant.  If Lisbon 1 was carried there would have been no research into the whys of it.  No to Lisbon got a greater share of the popular vote than Obama did, imagine if the McCain camp wanted a rerun based on market research.


----------



## Latrade (18 Sep 2009)

michaelm said:


> Indeed, do you even read your own posts before you submit them?


 
I don't get you. I echoed a sentiment that having the sole justification for voting No as a statement against the current government isn't valid. 



michaelm said:


> Valid reasons to vote No include . . Democratic principle (we said No already) . . the Treaty is deliberately unintelligible (as claimed by it's author) . . Ireland's voting strength is diluted while that of bigger states is hugely increased just as we surrender many more policy areas to QMV . . the Treaty creates, for the first time, an EU State of which we all will become citizens . . the attached Charter of Rights supersedes our rights as set out in the Irish Constitution and this Charter will be interpreted by the European Court of Justice . . we will be unable to reverse any unexpected or unwelcome interpretation by the ECJ via referendum, as we can currently do with Irish Supreme Court decisions . . we have ceded enough sovereignty to the EU already . . there are many more reasons to vote this Treaty down and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.


 
And these would be valid if they actually had any substance. 

Anyway:

1. Voting strength I refer to in another post (but seeing as I don't read my own posts, I can't be sure). But there's no point denying it we do lose that power. It could be argued we had too much power for our size, though I doubt we'd see it like that. But I already say that there are "safety valves" in place that prevent larger states pushing through their agenda.

2. The constitution created a "virtual" EU State. The Treaty doesn't. In fact the thing definitely removed is any reference to any form of overall state. The issue of a figurehead such as president/foreign affairs makes sense, it doesn't mean we'll be pledging allegance to President Blair or whoever. The current rotation of presidency is a massive cost for very little. It creates petty Naploeonic complexes as the new president has 6 months to show his country he's important and to leave some legacy on Europe. This stops that. Plus it means we have a representative figurehead for diplomatic relations rather than one week the Czech president, the next the French. 

The UN has a president and yet it hasn't created a new world order.

3. You do realise that Ireland has already signed up and adopted the Charter of Human Rights don't you? Therefore our courts have to follow European precedent in this. However outside of that it is remains as is. Yes for european derived legislation, the European court determination carries precendent (see the disgust this week over the accumulation of annual leave while on sick leave), but our courts keep their powers. In effect for European legislation we have adopted, we surrendered those powers a long time ago.

To continue to misrepresent the actual text in a format that generates an irrational fear of a European Super State is disingenuous, not reading the actual thing and seeing through the hyperbole.


----------



## michaelm (18 Sep 2009)

Latrade said:


> It’s also very clear that there is no loss of national sovereignty.


Look, if there was no loss of sovereignty there would be no referendum.  That is the whole point.  There IS a loss of sovereignty otherwise our weasel Government wouldn't be holding a referendum.  I assume you don't quite understand this point rather than you being deliberately misleading.





Latrade said:


> The bulk of the text is all about making the current system of governance and decision making more efficient and more democratic. As Europe has expanded, the old system just cannot cope. It’s like trying to play chess to the rules of hurling. The current system is entirely inefficient and undemocratic.


Are you Micheal Martin?  It's just a house-keeping/tidy-up exercise.  You say more democratic, the Dept. of Foreign Affairs 'information'  leaflet says 'streamline voting' . . but what we're doing is to dilute our voting weight to be based on population (like a federal type model).  Under Nice Germany's voting weight compared to Ireland is 4 to 1, under Lisbon it will be 20 to 1.  As for 'can't cope . . inefficient', it's coped quite will for more than five years, since May 2004 when 10 countries joined the EU and studies show that it has become more efficient.





Latrade said:


> Again, another “score” for democracy is that we, the people, me, you and everyone else can actually petition Europe to introduce or change new legislation.


This is a stupid idea thought up by John Gormless.  It's a cranks Charter.  Indeed it's first use will be by a Swedish leftwing party who plan to have their online petition complete for next month when/if Lisbon is ratified.  They want to petition the EU to force Abortion into Ireland (Article).





Latrade said:


> The Nice Treaty (the one we voted Yes to) reduces the number of commissioners. That has to happen next year unless…wait for it…unless Lisbon is ratified. If Lisbon is ratified, there is no reduction in the number of commissioners.


Nice says 'less Commissioners than countries, as agreed by States'.  Before Nice 2 our Commissioner, Davey Byrne & the Yes camp, said there would be 27 countries and 26 Commissioners, that we would only be without a Commissioner for 5 our of 130 years; there was even the suggestion that the country who's national held the Foreign Representative post would be the one to forgo a Commissioner.  Lisbon envisages a Commission of 2/3 the number of countries and that we loose the right to 'propose' our Commissioner and rather can merely 'suggest' one; EU lawyers do not change wording for no reason.  So what we've got is a politically expedient arrangement where Lisbon is unchanged the Commission President will ultimately decide who our Commissioner is to be, and in 2014 when the new Commission's term is up, the EU will probably be 30 countries and they will point to Lisbon when cutting the Commission to 20 and who knows on what rotating basis . . some bigger countries could even have permanent members just like with the UN security council.


----------



## Caveat (18 Sep 2009)

Latrade said:


> But there's no point denying it we do lose that power. It could be argued we had too much power for our size, though I doubt we'd see it like that.


 
This is it. Nobody, especially in this country likes to see anything taken away from them regardless of the justification.  Same with the automatic medical card for over 70s.


----------



## Latrade (18 Sep 2009)

michaelm said:


> Look, if there was no loss of sovereignty there would be no referendum. That is the whole point. There IS a loss of sovereignty otherwise our weasel Government wouldn't be holding a referendum. I assume you don't quite understand this point rather than you being deliberately misleading.


 
Actually, it isn’t. That’s not misleading in anyway, it’s just a small understanding of the Supreme Court decision of 1987. To recap, this *only* relates to co-operation (not loss of sovereignty) on foreign policy. And that’s it. The decision is that the Constitution places a trust in the government on foreign policy and therefore changes to this must be put to the people.




michaelm said:


> .Are you Micheal Martin? It's just a house-keeping/tidy-up exercise. You say more democratic, the Dept. of Foreign Affairs 'information'





michaelm said:


> leaflet says 'streamline voting' . . but what we're doing is to dilute our voting weight to be based on population (like a federal type model). Under Nice Germany's voting weight compared to Ireland is 4 to 1, under Lisbon it will be 20 to 1. As for 'can't cope . . inefficient', it's coped quite will for more than five years, since May 2004 when 10 countries joined the EU and studies show that it has become more efficient.




Nope, just someone who works closely in and with Europe and knows first hand it is anything but efficient or effective. Again, think social partnership on a more egregious and more agenda driven basis. 

Look, this is where we have to consider the woeful term “big picture”. There’s no point pretending we don’t lose in the proportion of votes. But it’s disingenuous to focus on that. The system is balanced and it simply does not give power to the larger states. To ladle a post with cliché, what is lost on the swings is gained on the roundabouts. 

And it really isn’t coping at all. Not one bit. The distribution of votes and power means things are very slow and impossible. The set up of the parliament, council, commission etc mean it’s even slower. The fact that it’s become the dumping ground for politicians who are out of favour in their member state doesn’t help. While its not necessarily broke, its very old rail stock and it needs an upgrade.




michaelm said:


> This is a stupid idea thought up by John Gormless. It's a cranks Charter. Indeed it's first use will be by a Swedish leftwing party who plan to have their online petition complete for next month when/if Lisbon is ratified. They want to petition the EU to force Abortion into Ireland (Article).


 
Your link doesn’t work. However, I’m aware of the petition. First, it’s a centre-right wing party, not left. Second, if they get 1 million signatures, then it must be considered, not implemented and not adopted, considered. Then the *new* *fairer *voting system would mean that it could be blocked easily (if so wanted). However, at 4000 signatures to date, it’s a while to go just yet. 

But then isn’t this democracy? You get the good with the bad, but the point is under Lisbon we can do this. At the moment its all in the hands of unelected officials and social partners to propose and debate and clear legislation. We can keep that system if you want.




michaelm said:


> Nice says 'less Commissioners than countries, as agreed by States'. Before Nice 2 our Commissioner, Davey Byrne & the Yes camp, said there would be 27 countries and 26 Commissioners, that we would only be without a Commissioner for 5 our of 130 years; there was even the suggestion that the country who's national held the Foreign Representative post would be the one to forgo a Commissioner. Lisbon envisages a Commission of 2/3 the number of countries and that we loose the right to 'propose' our Commissioner and rather can merely 'suggest' one; EU lawyers do not change wording for no reason. So what we've got is a politically expedient arrangement where Lisbon is unchanged the Commission President will ultimately decide who our Commissioner is to be, and in 2014 when the new Commission's term is up, the EU will probably be 30 countries and they will point to Lisbon when cutting the Commission to 20 and who knows on what rotating basis . . some bigger countries could even have permanent members just like with the UN security council.


 
The commissioner is a red herring. First look at who the commissioners are, not exactly the bright sparks of any member state. It’s become the limbo of political careers. Why on earth should we continue to let countries dump the ineffective and controversial politicians into this cauldron? Second, the commissioners cannot represent their countries, they have to act based on what’s best for Europe. No comments or views at all based on how something might affect Ireland. So whether we appoint one, don’t have one, get one selected, the outcome is the same.

The rotating basis is described, but not set. It will likely be every two years. In similar bodies there is also a maximum term of service, usually two. The proposal is that the commission will reflect the general set up of Europe, so there will be representation by small, medium and large states. So yes there will always be a representative for one or a proportion of larger states, but it won’t be the same commissioner or same state.


----------



## michaelm (18 Sep 2009)

Hey Latrade.  I like your last post.  You seem now to accept that 'more democratic' really means less voting strength for Ireland and that the petition is in fact fluff.  Also you've moved from the notion that Lisbon guarantees us a Commissioner to your real view that the one-for-all position will be dropped in a couple of years.  I also agree with you when you say . .

"The set up of the parliament, council, commission etc mean it’s even slower. The fact that it’s become the dumping ground for politicians who are out of favour in their member state doesn’t help. While its not necessarily broke, its very old rail stock and it needs an upgrade."

. . that very old rail stock makes up the EU gravy train. Rather than just upgrade the stock, a No to Lisbon presents the opportunity to to force a rethink on the direction of the whole project.  Career politicians and EU civil servants want the current federal direction, advanced by Lisbon.  I have no doubt that the peoples of Europe, if consulted, would have a preference for an EU which is about ease of travel and trade, more EEC like than the envisaged EU world power.  EU and Irish leaders are not being honest about the direction and destination of *their* EU project.


----------



## Latrade (18 Sep 2009)

michaelm said:


> Hey Latrade. I like your last post. You seem now to accept that 'more democratic' really means less voting strength for Ireland and that the petition is in fact fluff.


 
Michael, I’ve always said we get less voting. Nobody is saying anything different. So please don’t misrepresent what I’ve said as a change of view for cheap point scoring. I don’t want to get into hyperbolic statements or sentiments, but it will boil down to whether a population of 4 million who has had considerable assistance from Europe decides to give the two fingers to everyone else. Do we have a moral right to the current levels of voting? That’s something we have to weigh up.

But any change, is going to have pros and cons. We have to decide whether the pros outweigh the cons or vice versa. In this case to repeat: we lose our current voting level, but the overall system is more democratic, efficient and effective as a result. The new system has enough mechanisms and securities to prevent smaller states being overpowered in decisions by larger states. 

You’re also confusing me on your stance or understanding of democracy. Suffrage meant less voting powers for Aristocracy. Female suffrage meant less voting power for men. Are you saying this loss of voting power among an elite few is a bad thing? I’m not putting words or views into your mouth, I’m genuinely confused by your stance. One minute it’s undemocratic and the next “more democratic” is bad. 

Sometimes a loss of voting power *is *more democratic.

And yes, that particular example of a petition (you nicely sidestep the incorrect assumptions you made when you brought it up) is fluff. The petition process isn’t. As we’re all very aware sometimes democracy throws up some dummy stuff, it’s the nature of the beast, but it’s the best beast we’ve got. In a system that is criticised for being undemocratic and a transfer of power to unelected officials, how does a greater degree of public inclusion locally within member states and at a European level make it less democratic?




michaelm said:


> Also you've move from the notion that Lisbon guarantees us a Commissioner to your real view that the one-for-all position will be dropped in a couple of years. I also agree with you when you say.


 
Again, an unfair statement for point scoring. I’m more than happy to discuss and debate content of the Treaty, but not in this manner. I didn’t move, I stated what the current situation is, first, Nice means a reduction, Lisbon it will remain, but there might not be one in the future. A technicality, yes, but technically speaking we keep the commissioner. However, do you really want to keep an ineffective drain of finances?

So yet again, I never said one-for-all will remain forever, in fact I thought I made it clear I am no fan at all of the commissioners and am completely in favour of the proposals to cut them. 




michaelm said:


> "The set up of the parliament, council, commission etc mean it’s even slower. The fact that it’s become the dumping ground for politicians who are out of favour in their member state doesn’t help. While its not necessarily broke, its very old rail stock and it needs an upgrade."





michaelm said:


> . . that very old rail stock makes up the EU gravy train. Rather than just upgrade the stock, a No to Lisbon presents the opportunity to to force a rethink on the direction of the whole project. Career politicians and EU civil servants want the current federal direction, advanced by Lisbon. I have no doubt that the peoples of Europe, if consulted, would have a preference for an EU which is about ease of travel and trade, more EEC like than the envisaged EU world power. EU and Irish leaders are not being honest about the direction and destination of *their* EU project.


 
To take your points backwards: if the EU was pure travel and trade we as a nation would be stuck in the 80s. In addition to not see the benefits for us as individuals of a European voice as opposed to individual ones competing for World investment is beyond me.

I’ll be careful here because I don’t want to give anyone the impression that we have a large European Gun (which doesn’t affect our neutrality) pointing at our heads…but… two things to consider. One: Europe needs to change, it has to due its size. Two: Europe needs to change quickly because of the current economic issues.

What we do know is that there will be no humble back to the drawing board and a new proposal to accommodate more power to 4 million people. What will follow is a programme for a new way of running Europe that *will* be pushed through by the larger states. Ireland will be left in the sidelines, along with the other smaller states. In addition, Croatia might be a bit annoyed as they don’t get to come into Europe.

But we’re pals with America right? Let’s not fool ourselves too much, Ireland has its benefits and the relatively small number of foreign companies abandoning the state is testament to this. But among this is Ireland’s gateway to Europe and the European market. Nicely situated, same currency, English speaking, and a bit of craic as well. Enough at the moment to mean moving a to a cheaper, but non-English speaking, non-Euro country is prohibitive.

However, if we lose our position in Europe, we lose this selling point. 

Now among the other things Lisbon achieves is overcoming the ridiculous stumbling block that pitches member state against member state when looking at investment. Remember the Intel issue a few years ago? Because the old system has just been added to and tweaked as the common market grew, it’s created this problem. 

Another benefit is that Germany can no longer throw a strop or a spanner into the works because Ireland is good at tempting in foreign investment.

Again, aren’t a few votes lost worth this?


----------



## michaelm (18 Sep 2009)

I have no interest in trying to point score against you, or anyone.





Latrade said:


> I don’t want to give anyone the impression that we have a large European Gun (which doesn’t affect our neutrality) pointing at our heads…but…


But you go on to give the impression that we have a large European Gun pointing at our heads.





Latrade said:


> However, if we lose our position in Europe, we lose this selling point.


This is more of it.  There is no 'lose our position' in a No.  We would remain full EU & Euro members and there would have to be a EU wide debate on the direction of the EU. This would be healthy, as if we're to end up as part of a Federal State then it should be with our eyes open. If Ireland were castigated for a No to Lisbon then the EU leaders would be displaying to other small EU States, and the world, a contempt for democracy and their own rules.


----------



## Latrade (18 Sep 2009)

michaelm said:


> ...But you go on to give the impression that we have a large European Gun pointing at our heads....
> 
> There is no 'lose our position' in a No. We would remain full EU & Euro members and there would have to be a EU wide debate on the direction of the EU. This would be healthy, as if we're to end up as part of a Federal State then it should be with our eyes open. If Ireland were castigated for a No to Lisbon then the EU leaders would be displaying to other small EU States, and the world, a contempt for democracy and their own rules.


 
Have we put all the other issues to bed then?

I delivered the Gun to Head with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek. I went on the give the impression there was because there's no getting away from the fact that there is a dirty great big gun pointed at our heads. Whether it's loaded, whether it's a bluff or not is another issue.

Europe will change. It has to. If it doesn't, then the existing system may continue to trundle and rattle on in some format, however we are unlikely to see any support for any intiative. We're unlikely to see any assistance too forthcoming when needed (which might be sooner rather than later).

We've enough regard within Europe to make Ireland attractive to investment. Don't understimate the harm that could be caused by Ireland losing that goodwill within Europe over what boils down to extreme fractions misrepresenting the details of the Treaty, people using it to make stick one to the government, or some with their own xenophobic views on Europe.


----------



## Ceist Beag (18 Sep 2009)

michaelm said:


> There is no 'lose our position' in a No.  We would remain full EU & Euro members and there would have to be a EU wide debate on the direction of the EU.



michaelm you have made a lot of well argued points but I'm afraid this is not one of them. Anyone who doesn't think Irelands standing in the EU will be damaged by another vote is just kidding themselves. If we had a clear and well reasoned argument as to why we might vote no then this might have some merit in the eyes of the other countries. However we voted no the last time, our elected representatives tried to ascertain why we voted no, they put together a representation to the EU outlining why they felt we voted no as a result, and they achieved what they believe is the best resolution to this from our EU partners. If we vote no again then it is only natural that the other EU countries will be exasperated with us. How do you honestly think future dealings with Irish EU members will go if we vote no - do you honestly think it will be business as usual when we go asking for anything? As far as I'm concerned the message from those on the no side is so mixed and varied that there simply won't be any clear understanding as to why we voted no again, should that be the outcome - and thus our standing will be damaged in the eyes of the rest of Europe.
I'm not as well informed as yourself or LATrade so this is only my gut feel on the matter but I can't see any logic in the argument that a no vote will mean business as usual.


----------



## Westie123 (18 Sep 2009)

michaelm said:


> I have no interest in trying to point score against you, or anyone.But you go on to give the impression that we have a large European Gun pointing at our heads.This is more of it.  There is no 'lose our position' in a No.  We would remain full EU & Euro members and there would have to be a EU wide debate on the direction of the EU. This would be healthy, as if we're to end up as part of a Federal State then it should be with our eyes open. If Ireland were castigated for a No to Lisbon then the EU leaders would be displaying to other small EU States, and the world, a contempt for democracy and their own rules.



It would be my opinion that the EU leaders have already displayed a contempt for democracy by not accepting the result of the 1st Lisbon vote!


----------



## michaelm (18 Sep 2009)

Little put to bed.  I'll be voting No again, gun to the head, loaded or not.


----------



## Caveat (18 Sep 2009)

Out of interest Michael, Lisbon aside, how do you feel about the EEC/EC/EU in general?


----------



## michaelm (18 Sep 2009)

Caveat said:


> Out of interest Michael, Lisbon aside, how do you feel about the EEC/EC/EU in general?


I'm all for a Europe about ease of trade and travel.  I'm opposed to a Federal Europe and the further pooling of sovereignty.  I don't believe in the EU 'one size fits all' approach.  I believe that an Irish government as elected by the Irish people should make law and policy decisions here, those politicians are accountable to the people, subsequent governments can repeal bad laws and reverse bad policy decisions.  Currently when an Irish government agrees to something in Europe it becomes set in stone and any future Irish government can do nothing about it.


----------



## Yachtie (19 Sep 2009)

michaelm said:


> I believe that an Irish government as elected by the Irish people should make law and policy decisions here, those politicians are accountable to the people, subsequent governments can repeal bad laws and reverse bad policy decisions.


 
....as the FF lead govenment demonstrats on a daily basis!  

Sorry but above comment really made me laugh!!!


----------



## D8Lady (20 Sep 2009)

Was out campaigning today. Many women now firmly in the yes camp, especially older ones. 
The very definate nos were mainly younger men and very angry about it as well. Lot of anger in general though by everyone. 

Just curious if anyone else has noticed any trends?


----------



## Caveat (20 Sep 2009)

D8Lady said:


> Just curious if anyone else has noticed any trends?



Among people I know, the confirmed YES or NO voters are even more resolute, but quite a few have moved from NO to YES - very few have gone the other way.

No obvious demographic.


----------

