Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

RCIRL · 27-09-2009 10:31pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONenpqVS5lw

Goes to show the extent we will go to express our views on how bad this treaty really is.

Where is the yes song?

The Volt · 27-09-2009 10:54pm

RCIRL wrote: »

Their is something fundamentally wrong with this treaty and it should get the biggest No the Government has ever seen. If the treaty is so good for us, why do the Government have to force its benefits down our throat's with a campaign of blatant lies? If that's not bad enough they have to enlist two big business to add to the force, one of which is offering free flights to 100's of outside people to come over and force more yes's on us. Only a few months ago one of the business was totally against the treaty and joked about its creators. Another thing, the referendum commission is our sole source for unbiased information but they are pushing all the information toward a yes, you only have to make it as far as the ad campaign to see a big Y shaped by two hands, the yes theme carries through the entire web site and the television ads, its deceitful.

In the treaty noting is drafted up specifically to relate Ireland's jobs or the Irish economy, so why are the Government and its pals using these key areas to persuade our votes? They are taking advantage of our current situation to secure yes votes for possible benefits which may not relate to us.

If this was a Government election campaign would you believe the Governments campaign posters?

Why cant actual details within the treaty be used to show how it could be of benefit to Ireland, this would show an honest approach. We are voting on allowing an amendment to our constitution and this requires an honest approach.

The truth is, this treaty is another book that has been around before and rejected by other European member states its been re-worked to sneak its way out to save from being rejected again in those states. Thanks to our strong constitution it cant sneak past it.

We knew something wasn't right about it the first time and rejected it because of certain issues, its come back but those issues have not been attended to.

Most of you say that you shouldn't vote based on your personal situation its about the treaty and its contents etc. I'll say it before and I'll say it again it is because of the EU we are in this situation also because of the Governments dealings with the EU.

If this goes ahead we have until 2013 to lift ourselves out of this mess, if we don't do it by then we are in bigger trouble than ever before.

We need more time to go through the 300 pages that lend themselves to 3000 other pages to find out any true benefits which directly relate to our country.

For now, it is nothing but a rat we have smelled before but turned into a hamster, hamsters also stink.

If the treaty is so bad for us then why do the no side resort to complete and seemingly endless falsities? Surely if it's THAT bad then they could tell us so on the merit of the treaty or lack thereof.

amacachi · 27-09-2009 11:19pm

Columbus35 wrote: »

A NO vote is not only a vote against the numerous pitfalls of the Treaty, but is also a vote against the methods used to bring it to life.

Turkey can come in with or without Lisbon and the whole Human Rights thing in Lisbon would probably mean it would take longer for them to have any chance to get in with a yes vote.

So well done on lying.

BlitzKrieg · 27-09-2009 11:23pm

where did he mention turkey???

amacachi · 27-09-2009 11:35pm

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

where did he mention turkey???

Unless there was a ninja edit there I apologise, was 100% sure Turkey was mentioned.

MrMatisse · 28-09-2009 10:58am

Wouldnt worry about it.

The yes side make up stuff you have said all the time on this thread.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 28-09-2009 10:59am

IgnatiusPop wrote: »

"...self-serving, parochial gombeenism" ???????

Pope, I dont know if you are one of the many thousands of people in this country who has lost their job, but judging by your tone, I would suspect that you are not. The knock on effects of large multinationals like Dell leaving the country has a saggering effect on peoples lives. 2000 people lost their jobs when Dell left - but a further (approx.) 7000 lost their jobs in other companies around ireland that SUPPORTED Dell's Limerick plant. Perhaps you would like to meet some of the former employees of Waterford Crystal, who earlier this year were informed BY TEXT MESSAGE that they were now redundant - Some of those people had worked there for over 30 years.

This treaty is going to cause more and more jobs to leave Ireland, but more importantly if a common consolidated tax base is implimented around the EU - which Lisbon II makes possible - then it might make it next to impossible to coax these jobs back in the near future.

Hi Ignatius,

I'm jumping straight into a reply to your post, without reading the rest of the thread, so I don't know if anyone has said anything similar, I just want to answer myself anyway.

The self-serving parochial gombeenism I refer to is the notion that the EU should, or would go out of it's way to disapprove legal actions by other governments in order to bribe or buy a 'yes' vote in the Lisbon referendum. I specifically made the point in relation to this being described as an 'own-goal', because it implies that everything the EU does, one direction or another should, for some reason, revolve around the Irish referendum, which is the worst sort of parochial tripe.

I have nothing but sympathy for anyone who has lost their job as part of the bursting of the credit/property bubble nationally, and internationally, and I hope that Irish politicians, of whatever party, who are likely to form a future government have learned a lesson about a sustainable economic policy, which doesn't over rely on one sector, which is fuelled by speculation and cheap credit. I hope they do this sooner, rather than later, which will create new jobs for people who are currently unemployed.

rumour · 28-09-2009 11:59am

I've posted here a many times arguing mostly the cons of this treaty before it descended into the most embarassing unhonourable and intellectually base polarisation of any debate I have ever seen in my life. Trully this experience is a first.

The whole scenario is a national embarassment void of any integrity. I now believe this speaks volumes of our so called nation. A nation who spent ten years borrowing from everyone on the planet they could get money of to indulge themselves. Nationally we never stopped to think how to pay this money back. This is the behaviour of a drunk. It may not be common knowledge to the younger audiences here or those who have never travelled but that is a foreign perception of the Irish and true to form we have delivered.

Our debate regarding the Lisbon treaty is on a par with drunks arguing in the pub. It is centered by both sides by hypothetical promises of doom no matter what way you vote.

Unfortunately I have to admit with shame that this is the Ireland of today, we are now beggars debating where tomorrows meal comes from. That is what will decide Lisbon. How sad is that?

To vote NO at this stage is to bite the hand that feeds, there is no other way around this. Ireland as a nation would cease to function tomorrow if it were not for the ECB. Our goodwill with this bank is now vital, not just for tomorrow but for the next ten years at least (my opinion) and this is with or without Lisbon. Obviously 'No' will affect this relationship, but that is a personal choice for everyone.

Our ability to get out of this problem in ten years will I believe be hampered by the subsequent treaties following Lisbon, arguably they may not need to have a new treaty but who cares, the future of Europe will have to consolidate its financial position to exert any clout internationally. This it must do for the benefit of EU citizens or the minumum wage will collapse to Chinese levels. Some people may not like this but I think it is absolutely necessary going forward. Tax havens such as Dublins IFSC will only exist with some sort of special dispensation. Tax harmonisation is already on the agenda in France and Germany, for those who detest this perspective, you should have thought about these things before we racked up billions of debt. I do not want to centre blame on the bankers or government because it is the people of this country who voted for the government and the people of this country who went into the bank and asked for the loans.

Again with shame the Irish have fulfilled their national characature and been found out as not being capable of running their own country. Faced with that logic and being rational, it is probably best that we vote for Lisbon unless there are some radical plans for how this country can be restructured to function. But sadly none of these are on the horizon from any angle.

So the idea of an educated debate where we the Irish may participate as peers in Europe is nothing more than an indulgence. We had a country but now we must sign it over because we can't pay the bills. I don't think I'll vote at all now I see no point in deluding myself that there is a choice.

hellboy99 · 28-09-2009 12:58pm

Campaigners that have been to my door and all the campaigners we have all heard throughout the media, the "No" campaigners come across as they have read the treaty in full and can answer questions put to them.

The way I see it is that the "Yes" campaigners are using scare tactics, the recession and false statements to get a yes vote, by doing this they are doing a great injustice to the people of this country.
Voting yes is not going to get us out of the mess our government, bankers, etc. got us into to, it's not going to stop the recession nor is it going to create new jobs.

Under Article 48 in the Treaty, this clause allows the EU to escalate it's powers into new areas without coming back to the people for a vote on any changes. So basically we lose are right as a democracy and we are handing over more power to the EU, how is this a good thing for us

We voted "No" the first time round and yet we have to vote again, what happens if it's "No" this time again, will there be another vote, if that's the case our government may just bring it in as they obviously don't respect the peoples vote.

Hitman Actual · 28-09-2009 1:06pm

hellboy99 wrote: »

Campaingers that have been to my door and all the campaingers we have all heard throughout the media, the "No" campaingers come across as they have read the treaty in full and can answer questions put to them.

As far as I can see, the No campaigners have a set list of Treaty arguments that they all use, but which all can easily be shown to be lies.

hellboy99 wrote: »

Under Article 48 in the Treaty, this clause allows the EU to escalate it's powers into new areas without coming back to the people for a vote on any changes. So basically we lose are right as a democracy and we are handing over more power to the EU, how is this a good thing for us

This is a constant lie of the No side. Any changes that would be brought through the new procedures wouldn't need a referendum as things stand in Nice. There's a decent explanation in the IT today.

Scofflaw · 28-09-2009 1:08pm

hellboy99 wrote: »

Campaingers that have been to my door and all the campaingers we have all heard throughout the media, the "No" campaingers come across as they have read the treaty in full and can answer questions put to them.

The way I see it is that the "Yes" campaingers are using scare tactics, the recession and false statements to get a yes vote, by doing this they are doing a great injustice to the people of this country.
Voting yes is not going to get us out of the mess our government, bankers, etc. got us into to, it's not going to stop the recession nor is it going to create new jobs.

Under Article 48 in the Treaty, this clause allows the EU to escalate it's powers into new areas without coming back to the people for a vote on any changes. So basically we lose are right as a democracy and we are handing over more power to the EU, how is this a good thing for us

Sigh. No, Article 48 specifically precludes increasing the EU's competences by the simplified revision procedure:

Article 48.6. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the European Council proposals for revising all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to the internal policies and action of the Union. The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Council shall act by unanimity after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central Bank in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties.

hellboy99 wrote: »

We voted "No" the first time round and yet we have to vote again, what happens if it's "No" this time again, will there be another vote, if that's the case our government may just bring it in as they obviously don't respect the peoples vote.

I'd say the Treaty is dead if that happens, because the Treaty is out of time, and there's not enough political capital for the government to run another referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob · 28-09-2009 1:11pm

hellboy99 wrote: »

the "No" campaigners come across as they have read the treaty in full and can answer questions put to them.

sounds like them dodgy looking "salesmen" who come around every so often trying to sell <stolen> couches etc from back of a van

they are very "knowledgeable" too, in as far as its all lies coming out of their mouth

K-9 · 28-09-2009 1:14pm

hellboy99 wrote: »

Campaigners that have been to my door and all the campaigners we have all heard throughout the media, the "No" campaigners come across as they have read the treaty in full and can answer questions put to them.

The way I see it is that the "Yes" campaigners are using scare tactics, the recession and false statements to get a yes vote, by doing this they are doing a great injustice to the people of this country.
Voting yes is not going to get us out of the mess our government, bankers, etc. got us into to, it's not going to stop the recession nor is it going to create new jobs.

Under Article 48 in the Treaty, this clause allows the EU to escalate it's powers into new areas without coming back to the people for a vote on any changes. So basically we lose are right as a democracy and we are handing over more power to the EU, how is this a good thing for us

We voted "No" the first time round and yet we have to vote again, what happens if it's "No" this time again, will there be another vote, if that's the case our government may just bring it in as they obviously don't respect the peoples vote.

Article 48 has to be in accordance with our Constitution.

I do think the No side has over played the lies this time. Most of the concerns of undecided voters are easy to address if the No side are telling clear lies.

Johnboy1951 · 28-09-2009 2:27pm

I guess the implications of Art. 48 and other parts of this treaty, for voters, comes down to the voters' view of what our politicians might vote for (or not).
Considering that our representatives were pushing very strongly for a Yes vote on "Lisbon 1" might indicate to some that our representatives cannot be relied upon to actually represent the peoples' views.

Unfortunately I cannot see a way out of that situation, but it could appear that giving our representatives any more power than they already have would not be a smart move, considering their recent history particularly.

For some it comes down to how much trust one has in any group of politicians, of whatever colour, to properly represent and make decisions for the betterment of the citizens.

.

Scofflaw · 28-09-2009 2:30pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I guess the implications of Art. 48 and other parts of this treaty, for voters, comes down to the voters' view of what our politicians might vote for (or not).
Considering that our representatives were pushing very strongly for a Yes vote on "Lisbon 1" might indicate to some that our representatives cannot be relied upon to actually represent the peoples' views.

Unfortunately I cannot see a way out of that situation, but it could appear that giving our representatives any more power than they already have would not be a smart move, considering their recent history particularly.

For some it comes down to how much trust one has in any group of politicians, of whatever colour, to properly represent and make decisions for the betterment of the citizens.

.

It doesn't matter what our politicians vote for - you can't make an omelette out of bricks, and you can't increase the EU's competences by use of the simplified revision procedure in Article 48, because it specifically doesn't allow that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Elmo · 28-09-2009 5:54pm

Group | Accession | SEA | Maastricht | Amsterdam | Nice | Lisbon
| | | | | |
Fianna Fáil | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES

They negotiated the treaty.

Stark · 28-09-2009 5:56pm

And sure we're all living with the terrible consequences of accession.

Sam Vimes · 28-09-2009 5:57pm

Elmo wrote: »

Group | Accession | SEA | Maastricht | Amsterdam | Nice | Lisbon
| | | | | |
Fianna Fáil | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES

They negotiated the treaty.

What's your point? That being involved in the negotiation of the treaty and having control over its contents would tend to result in them being supportive of it? I wholeheartedly agree. Anything else would be like a critic giving his own book a bad review

Elmo · 28-09-2009 10:32pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What's your point? That being involved in the negotiation of the treaty and having control over its contents would tend to result in them being supportive of it? I wholeheartedly agree. Anything else would be like a critic giving his own book a bad review

My point is just as pointless as making a list of those who said NO over the last number of years.

FF have no ones interested in mind but their own, FG and Labour are walking blindly into FF policy with out any real reflection or say in the treaty but that is there for them to do that.

And sure we're all living with the terrible consequences of accession.

1973 to 1993 weren't the best years of Irish Economic History. And FF policy has us were we are today.

I agree with Europe, I just don't agree with the way people are going around pushing it.

And I worry as much about the YES side as the NO side.

RandomName2 · 28-09-2009 11:09pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

It doesn't matter what our politicians vote for - you can't make an omelette out of bricks, and you can't increase the EU's competences by use of the simplified revision procedure in Article 48, because it specifically doesn't allow that.

(Scofflaw, my emphasis)

'Article 48 TEU

1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures.

Ordinary revision procedure.

2. The government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties. These proposals may, inter alia, serve either to increase or to reduce the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties.'

[...]

Simplified revision procedures

* 6 The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the European Council proposals for revising [...] the Functioning of the Union relating to the internal policies and action of the Union

marco_polo · 28-09-2009 11:14pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

'Article 48 TEU

1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures.

Ordinary revision procedure.

2. The government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties. These proposals may, inter alia, serve either to increase or to reduce the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties.'

I don't understand how you believe that quoting a paragraph from the Ordinary Revision Proceedure, proves that the Simplified Proceedure can increase the compatencies of the union.

Elmo · 28-09-2009 11:16pm

marco_polo wrote: »

I don't understand how quoting a paragraph from the Ordinary Revision Proceedure, proves that the Simplified Proceedure can increase the compatencies of the union.

Surely the Simplified Proceedure should simplify the ordinary revision proceedure thus making it easier for you to understand?

marco_polo · 28-09-2009 11:19pm

Elmo wrote: »

Surely the Simplified Proceedure should simplify the ordinary revision proceedure thus making it easier for you to understand?

Explain.

RandomName2 · 28-09-2009 11:22pm

marco_polo wrote: »

I don't understand how you believe that quoting a paragraph from the Ordinary Revision Proceedure, proves that the Simplified Proceedure can increase the compatencies of the union.

Apologies. Extended.

Hmm...

Odd contradiction in that same paragraph. It actually does specifically mention that it does not increase competencies relating to 'the second subparagraph' whatever the hell that means.

meglome · 28-09-2009 11:29pm

Stark wrote: »

And sure we're all living with the terrible consequences of accession.

He he yeah those terrible consequences we've had to endure since 1972/73. Sarkozy came round to my house last week and bullied me. Although in hindsight it may have been the milkman.

marco_polo · 28-09-2009 11:34pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

Apologies. Extended.

Hmm...

Odd contradiction in that same paragraph. It actually does specifically mention that it does not increase competencies relating to 'the second subparagraph' whatever the hell that means.

The numbered point are the paragraphs (1-7 in this case). Sub paragraphs are the sub divisions within each number paragraph.

Elmo · 28-09-2009 11:39pm

meglome wrote: »

He he yeah those terrible consequences we've had to endure since 1972/73. Sarkozy came round to my house last week and bullied me. Although in hindsight it may have been the milkman.

The 20 years of recession? You must have been in America for that!

Sam Vimes · 29-09-2009 1:52am

Elmo wrote: »

My point is just as pointless as making a list of those who said NO over the last number of years.

FF have no ones interested in mind but their own, FG and Labour are walking blindly into FF policy with out any real reflection or say in the treaty but that is there for them to do that.

I'm intrigued as to how you can so easily dismiss FF's support as merely self serving (and presumably to our detriment too or the fact that the treaty is also good for them would be irrelevant) considering they want to stay in government and if the treaty is bad for the people they will decrease their likelihood of being re-elected. Also they live in this country too and FF are people with families just like everyone else and if half the stuff coming from the no side is true they'd have to be more than corrupt, they'd have to be truly evil to want to inflict that on their families, friends and neighbours for the sake of a few Euro Brownie points. I also find it odd that they would deliberately negotiate a treaty that would be bad for the country. Yes sometimes they do stupid things but a government that's out to do as much damage to the country as possible seems a very odd idea to me.

Then we come to the opposition parties and you dismiss them as "blindly following FF policy" which I find odd since they oppose them on so many other matters. Often I get the impression that they take an opposing view to the government just to be seen to have alternative proposals, NAMA for instance where FG and Labour both put forward plans that were generally accepted to be riskier and more costly, even within their own parties. You would think this treaty would be the perfect thing to take an opposing view on given the high no vote last time and yet they didn't. Sorry but that doesn't wash with me I'm afraid

And of course they are very far from the only groups supporting a yes vote, see my sig for lots and lots more.

But then you look at the no campaign and you see that it consists almost entirely of the far left, the far right and the far out, the liars, the losers and the lunatics. They're the communists, the fascists, the terrorists, the religious fundamentalists and the guy with the US military contracts. They're the people who've been opposed to the EU since we joined and would love nothing more than to see Ireland pull out to satisfy their various vested interests and some of them want the end of the EU (UKIP). There are one or two groups that wouldn't fall into that category but they all have some side issue they're pushing like the taxi drivers and are taking their frustration out on the treaty or when you look at their reasons you see they've been taken in by the lies of the aforementioned lunatics, such as the whole minimum wage and 'race to the bottom' fiction

When all of those groups are on the same side as you, the extreme left AND the extreme right, when you're scraping the bottom of the barrel to find any public figure with an ounce of respectability who shares your views, maybe its time to examine your views

Elmo · 29-09-2009 1:58am

I was going to list FG but sure they are the same as FF and there are a number of Celebs out looking for a yes vote could have gone with them too.

As for Labour they vote NO during the 70s and the Greens during the 90s with P. McKenna who got alot of stuff past in this country, THE McKenna Judgement.

I realize that their are other looking for this to be passed but it is being lead by FF from the talks through to the second referendum and they haven't being doing a good job in general so why should I trust them that this is good.

Plenty of other parliaments where the opposition actually voted against this treaty. But they really would have looked for a Yes vote had there been a ref in their country so I guess that doesn't count.

You mention Progressive Democrats? Why? Construction Industry Federation (CIF)? Seriously? Irish Banking Federation? Ah come on?

Sparks43 · 29-09-2009 2:27am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But then you look at the no campaign and you see that it consists almost entirely of the far left, the far right and the far out, the liars, the losers and the lunatics. They're the communists, the fascists, the terrorists, the religious fundamentalists and the guy with the US military contracts. They're the people who've been opposed to the EU since we joined and would love nothing more than to see Ireland pull out to satisfy their various vested interests and some of them want the end of the EU (UKIP). There are one or two groups that wouldn't fall into that category but they all have some side issue they're pushing like the taxi drivers and are taking their frustration out on the treaty or when you look at their reasons you see they've been taken in by the lies of the aforementioned lunatics, such as the whole minimum wage and 'race to the bottom' fiction

I deeply resent that statement i am a working man who has used his vote on every occasion and has never followed any party line, left right centre up or down

until our last lisbon vote was made a mockary off by our government and europe i never got involved in political discussion and just like my religon i kept my beliefs to myself while respecting others

But for me now enough is enough

I am a NO campaigner

I am Pro Europe but this treaty gives Europe a strangle hold over its member states (U.S.E?)

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

17) An Article 9 C shall be inserted:
"ARTICLE 9 C
1. The Council shall, jointly with the European Parliament, exercise legislative and
budgetary functions. It shall carry out policy-making and coordinating functions as laid down
in the Treaties.
2. The Council shall consist of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level,
who may commit the government of the Member State in question and cast its vote.
3. The Council shall act by a qualified majority except where the Treaties provide
otherwise.
4. As from 1 November 2014, a qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55 % of the
members of the Council, comprising at least fifteen of them and representing Member States
comprising at least 65 % of the population of the Union.
A blocking minority must include at least four Council members, failing which the qualified
majority shall be deemed attained.
The other arrangements governing the qualified majority are laid down in Article 205(2) of
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
TL/en 24
5. The transitional provisions relating to the definition of the qualified majority which
shall be applicable until 31 October 2014 and those which shall be applicable from
1 November 2014 to 31 March 2017 are laid down in the Protocol on transitional provisions.
6. The Council shall meet in different configurations, the list of which shall be adopted in
accordance with Article 201b of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
The General Affairs Council shall ensure consistency in the work of the different Council
configurations. It shall prepare and ensure the follow-up to meetings of the European Council,
in liaison with the President of the European Council and the Commission.
The Foreign Affairs Council shall elaborate the Union's external action on the basis of
strategic guidelines laid down by the European Council and ensure that the Union's action is
consistent.
7. A Committee of Permanent Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
shall be responsible for preparing the work of the Council.
8. The Council shall meet in public when it deliberates and votes on a draft legislative act.
To this end, each Council meeting shall be divided into two parts, dealing respectively with
deliberations on Union legislative acts and non-legislative activities.
9. The Presidency of Council configurations, other than that of Foreign Affairs, shall be
held by Member State representatives in the Council on the basis of equal rotation, in
accordance with the conditions established in accordance with Article 201b of the Treaty on
the Functioning of the European Union."
TL/en

"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it"

Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

Comments