I voted No primarily because I'm opposed to further political integration, centralising power in Brussels, but maybe I'm just 1 in 862,415. Secondary issues for me were: being legally bound by the Charter which would be interpreted by the ECJ rather than the Irish Supreme Court; the re-balancing of voting strength in favour of big states; further military integration and spending commitments; and that Lisbon was a rehash of the Constitution which had already been rejected elsewhere. Also I did not believe that I could count on our politicians to stand firm in relation to our veto on tax matters; if the EU genuinely had no designs on tax harmonisation they would write, 'Tax is a sovereign matter for member states, the EU has no competency in this area', into the treaties.I think that much has been made of the various issues but it'll be interesting to learn on how much impact they actually had on the no vote.
You may learn that ignoring reality doesn't change it. You have my sympathies that reality doesn't fit your views.
The “what next” is to try to present the facts and reality to the public and not let disingenuous spin peddled by those with, as Garrett Fitzgerald would say, a flawed pedigree, cloud the truth.
very good post michaelm....the points you have stated are the main reasons i voted no ...and i would say that includes the marjority of irish voters also.I voted No primarily because I'm opposed to further political integration, centralising power in Brussels, but maybe I'm just 1 in 862,415. Secondary issues for me were: being legally bound by the Charter which would be interpreted by the ECJ rather than the Irish Supreme Court; the re-balancing of voting strength in favour of big states; further military integration and spending commitments; and that Lisbon was a rehash of the Constitution which had already been rejected elsewhere. Also I did not believe that I could count on our politicians to stand firm in relation to our veto on tax matters; if the EU genuinely had no designs on tax harmonisation they would write, 'Tax is a sovereign matter for member states, the EU has no competency in this area', into the treaties.
IMHO these are valid reasons for voting No. I believe that No side where genuine in there actions and that to tar them as US puppets, isolationists and fundamentalists who, against all the odds, tricked the poor unwashed masses into voting No by utilising Nazi-esque propaganda methods, is unwarranted and a disservice to voters.
I agree that these are valid reasons to vote no.I voted No primarily because I'm opposed to further political integration, centralising power in Brussels, but maybe I'm just 1 in 862,415. Secondary issues for me were: being legally bound by the Charter which would be interpreted by the ECJ rather than the Irish Supreme Court;
I think we still get a fair voice.the re-balancing of voting strength in favour of big states;
We retain the same water-tight position we got before Maastricht so I don’t accept that we could in any way be drawn into this but the plan was for EU as a whole to integrate further. This, in my opinion, was no bad thing as it offered a counterbalance to America (which may have influenced some with strong links to the American military establishment to be against it).further military integration and spending commitments;
But it was changed.and that Lisbon was a rehash of the Constitution which had already been rejected elsewhere.
This has nothing to do with Lisbon. Direst taxation is, at the moment, a sovereign matter for the member states. Corporation Tax is a form of direct taxation. This can only be changed with unanimity. Lisbon changed nothing here.Also I did not believe that I could count on our politicians to stand firm in relation to our veto on tax matters; if the EU genuinely had no designs on tax harmonisation they would write, 'Tax is a sovereign matter for member states, the EU has no competency in this area', into the treaties.
I agree that many are.I MHO these are valid reasons for voting No.
I believe that a minority of the No side were influenced, in part or in total, by the misinformation that was put out. This minority was big enough to swing the vote. The post earlier in this or the first thread on Lisbon about the hairdresser who was voting No because she didn’t want her son fighting in the EU army in Afghanistan typifies how the seeds of fear can grow to entangle the truth.I believe that No side where genuine in there actions and that to tar them as US puppets, isolationists and fundamentalists who, against all the odds, tricked the poor unwashed masses into voting No by utilising Nazi-esque propaganda methods, is unwarranted and a disservice to voters.
I believe that a minority of the No side were influenced, in part or in total, by the misinformation that was put out. This minority was big enough to swing the vote. The post earlier in this or the first thread on Lisbon about the hairdresser who was voting No because she didn’t want her son fighting in the EU army in Afghanistan typifies how the seeds of fear can grow to entangle the truth.
Good pointA minority of people may have been swayed to vote this way because of reasons not central to the treaty. How many people voted yes because they actually understood the treaty?? How many of these people may have noted no if they were fully aware of the valid issues/concerns raised by among others michaelm last post. I would say a considerable amount. I'd say that would even things up nicely.
I presume you are being sarcastic. I hope in doing o you are not implying that what you said is my opinion of the lady in question.As for the hairdresser who vote no because she did not want her son fighting in a European army. See obviously the uneducated unwashed masses like our humble hairdresser are going to be duped by those clever shinners. Stupid woman. She should get back to cutting hair. Convenient little story that but it actually adds little to the general debate.
I think we agree on more than we disagree on. The 'fair voice' you mention may be fair on a per capita basis but it's a dilution of our better current position under Nice. The EU is supposed to be a union of equals but the re-balancing usurps that idea. In fairness, if the UK rejected the treaty then that would have been the end of the matter; that, for me, underlines how big and small states are treated differently.I think we still get a fair voice.
The French and Germans desire an EU army, I could care less, but we should stay out of it. IMHO Ireland's reputation in relation to peace keeping and as an honest broker is being undermined by a steady creep of military integration, including, joining NATO's PfP and EU Battle Groups and, under Lisbon, signing up to Peace Enforcement (and other such misadventure) and committing to military spending. Irish troops should be wearing blue UN hats, when abroad, not EU or NATO-Lite.We retain the same water-tight position we got before Maastricht so I don’t accept that we could in any way be drawn into this but the plan was for EU as a whole to integrate further.
I don't think that anyone on the Yes side really believes that there's any real difference between the EU Constitution and Lisbon.But it [EU Constitution] was changed.
We have a different interpretation here. For me, if it were a sovereign matter then it wouldn't be an EU competency, but it is, it's an EU competency subject to unanimity. Any Irish government could surrender or trade our veto and it would be gone, forever. A renegotiation of Lisbon, although I doubt it'll happen, could include a clear statement on tax. A standardised method of calculating CT, which France and other big states will push through, is the first essential step if one wished to harmonise rates.Direst taxation is, at the moment, a sovereign matter for the member states. Corporation Tax is a form of direct taxation. This can only be changed with unanimity. Lisbon changed nothing here.
I think we agreed that after Lisbon the 'Charter' would be legally binding as interpreted by the ECJ; the No side said it could/would mean X, the Yes side said it couldn't/wouldn't. Neither side could say for sure, it's a genuine question mark rather than misinformation. What is for sure is that the Irish would have no recourse to remedy an unexpected and undesirable judgment. As for Afghanistan, who knows where EU Battle Groups will pop up? Irish troops are currently (dubiously) on 'smile and wave' duty in Chad, not being able to tell the difference between Chadian troops and rebels, all armed to the teeth and milling around in pick-up trucks.I believe that a minority of the No side were influenced, in part or in total, by the misinformation that was put out.
I voted No primarily because I'm opposed to further political integration, centralising power in Brussels, but maybe I'm just 1 in 862,415. Secondary issues for me were: being legally bound by the Charter which would be interpreted by the ECJ rather than the Irish Supreme Court; the re-balancing of voting strength in favour of big states; further military integration and spending commitments; and that Lisbon was a rehash of the Constitution which had already been rejected elsewhere. Also I did not believe that I could count on our politicians to stand firm in relation to our veto on tax matters; if the EU genuinely had no designs on tax harmonisation they would write, 'Tax is a sovereign matter for member states, the EU has no competency in this area', into the treaties.
IMHO these are valid reasons for voting No. I believe that the No side where genuine in there actions and that to tar them as US puppets, isolationists and fundamentalists who, against all the odds, tricked the poor unwashed masses into voting No by utilising Nazi-esque propaganda methods, is unwarranted and a disservice to voters.
Not a fan of the Indo either - but anyway - their online poll today asks "Do you think that if Sarkozy is attempting to bully the Irish people?" and so far it's 86% YES. (The only YES the treaty'll be getting, I think).
Well he's not just saying we have to vote again but, by implication, that we have to vote Yes. To object to such an intervention may or may not be typical but is certainly reasonable.Whether or not Sarkozy is trying to bully or not is open to interpretation but I think the reality is that we will be asked to vote again...however, in typical fashion, we just object to somebody else telling us so...
...however, in typical fashion, we just object to somebody else telling us so...
...and why, if it's all external factors, is Germany doing well? It is the biggest exporter in the world and is selling under the same international pressures.This line just robbed your chosen view of credibility. There is absolutely no correlation between the Lisbon vote and our stock market and economy as it stands. The current state of the economy is 99.99% other factors such as the state of the world economy, the property bubble, the high price of Oil and the banking crisis, not to mention the US war in the middle east. Its also the fault of the Euro interest rates being unsuitable for our economy and being chosen for the benefit of Germany. Lisbon is in the halfpenny place.
...and why, if it's all external factors, is Germany doing well? It is the biggest exporter in the world and is selling under the same international pressures.
The example of this folly is Germany, which experienced the first EMU-inspired recession in the late 1990s to the early part of this decade. Germany had its unification boom in the early '90s, it spent enormous sums of money trying to absorb the East, the economy boomed for a while, wages rose as did property prices and immigration.
Then in the late 1990s, German industry realised it couldn't compete at these new higher wages and it retrenched. The engine of Europe went into a decade long downturn. Euro interest rates -- although low -- were not low enough for a faltering Germany and the euro was far too strong for German exporters so they took the recession on the chin.
Unemployment rose to over four million and stayed there for close to a decade. German companies became competitive again by shedding jobs. Now after 10 years of a slump, they are world beaters again, but many ordinary Germans suffered much more than they would have had they had their own currency.
This line just robbed your chosen view of credibility. There is absolutely no correlation between the Lisbon vote and our stock market and economy as it stands.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?