Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Referendum on Lisbon Treaty
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Hmm. That's exactly the kind of tradeoff I mean - we traded off CAP support for our farmers against opening our fisheries. Without CAP support the Irish countryside would look very different.
Articles like 308 allow the EU and the governments make other tradeoffs (i.e. have power) without authority from the treaties. I cannot vote for this.Scofflaw wrote:Do you? Why? Businesses in startup mode need money for capital investment. The lower the interest rates, the cheaper it is to buy the use of that capital -> the easier to start a business.
Our recklessness was certainly unparalleled, but it was us who made a heap of sh1te out of a potential mountain of gold, not the EU. Nobody forced us to use those interest rates purely for consumer debt and mortgages, and there's no point pretending anyone did.
Ok you are making too much of this start-up investment argument. Interest rates have a much more powerful affect and influence on other areas. Inflation is the direct result of an overheating economy. Inflation = bad. It's nobody's fault. Blame the banks if you must, but really one can't open a can of worms and be annoyed when the worms don't wriggle in the direction one wants. Interest rates should have been raised to prevent a big problem from getting worse. It's gotten worse and we must suffer the consequences of this.Scofflaw wrote:I have to say I'm tired of arguing this particular one, because you simply don't accept that democratic accountability means anything to MEPs.
MEPs answer to us as much as politicians in the council.
They're not some sort of new species of politician you know.
If the council passes something don't expect the MEPs to act as a magic safety net. That is all.Scofflaw wrote:It allows the EU to get on with carrying out the responsibilities they have been tasked to carry out by the national parliaments of Europe. Since they're doing it on our behalf, it's of benefit to you that they have the necessary powers to actually do what they've been told to do.
Hmm, the end justifies the means you say. No potential for abuse there. :rolleyes:Article 28 wrote:Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities.
Can't say I like this bit either.
Even if Ireland does get an exemption, do we want our EU going in this direction?
Improving military capabilities can never be a good thing
0 -
Articles like 308 allow the EU and the governments make other tradeoffs (i.e. have power) without authority from the treaties. I cannot vote for this.
Well, that's your right. If you really don't like it, you should certainly vote No.Ok you are making too much of this start-up investment argument. Interest rates have a much more powerful affect and influence on other areas. Inflation is the direct result of an overheating economy. Inflation = bad. It's nobody's fault. Blame the banks if you must, but really one can't open a can of worms and be annoyed when the worms don't wriggle in the direction one wants. Interest rates should have been raised to prevent a big problem from getting worse. It's gotten worse and we must suffer the consequences of this.
An 'overheating economy'? There's no such thing. Inflation happens when an economy is growing so fast that it's having difficulty pulling in the necessary resources.
We created our asset bubble, when we could have put the money into businesses. Nobody's fault but our own.
I'm not using this argument to get around the question of whether ECB rates are set with an eye on the Irish economy - they're not, of course, and I don't disagree with you there. However, there's simply no requirement that low interest rates must result in asset bubbles like our housing bubble (not that there aren't still plenty of people claiming it wasn't a bubble and everything's still good).
MEPs answer to us as much as politicians in the council.I have to say I'm tired of arguing this particular one, because you simply don't accept that democratic accountability means anything to MEPs.
They're not some sort of new species of politician you know.
If the council passes something don't expect the MEPs to act as a magic safety net. That is all.
Well, yes - that's what I said you were saying. You don't see MEPs as accountable, even though they're directly elected - and I can't for the life of me see why.
Hmm, the end justifies the means you say. No potential for abuse there. :rolleyes:It allows the EU to get on with carrying out the responsibilities they have been tasked to carry out by the national parliaments of Europe. Since they're doing it on our behalf, it's of benefit to you that they have the necessary powers to actually do what they've been told to do.
Oh, stop being ridiculous. Did I say I thought the EU was entitled to grant itself anything it liked in pursuit of its aims? No, and you know I didn't.
Can't say I like this bit either.Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities.
Even if Ireland does get an exemption, do we want our EU going in this direction?
Improving military capabilities can never be a good thing
Hurrah! A (new) substantive point!
Why can't it?
(And by the way, as far as I know, Ireland is not 'exempt' from that clause.)
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Scofflaw wrote:Hurrah! A (new) substantive point!
Why can't it?
(And by the way, as far as I know, Ireland is not 'exempt' from that clause.)
I'll crack open a new case of champagne
scofflaw wrote:An 'overheating economy'? There's no such thing. Inflation happens when an economy is growing so fast that it's having difficulty pulling in the necessary resources.
We created our asset bubble, when we could have put the money into businesses. Nobody's fault but our own.
I'm not using this argument to get around the question of whether ECB rates are set with an eye on the Irish economy - they're not, of course, and I don't disagree with you there. However, there's simply no requirement that low interest rates must result in asset bubbles like our housing bubble (not that there aren't still plenty of people claiming it wasn't a bubble and everything's still good).
You're right - low interest rates don't equal asset bubbles.
However, when an asset bubble is obviously comming down the tracks (it's not like no one saw this coming!) you don't just sit there adding fuel to the fire.
Anyway, we have gone somewhat off point. My original point here is that the EU's and Ireland's interests aren't always the same. This was as a response to the necessity of the nation-state comment. Hopefully we can put this to bed now.Scofflaw wrote:Well, yes - that's what I said you were saying. You don't see MEPs as accountable, even though they're directly elected - and I can't for the life of me see why.
They are as accountable as members of the Council, which are also directly elected. I wasn't arguing this.
Don't go all Austin Powers on me nowScofflaw wrote:Oh, stop being ridiculous. Did I say I thought the EU was entitled to grant itself anything it liked in pursuit of its aims? No, and you know I didn't.
I gave examples already for why I don't like this article, there is no need to restate them.Scofflaw wrote:Why can't it?
(And by the way, as far as I know, Ireland is not 'exempt' from that clause.)
I think that any extra money spent on military spending is better spent elsewhere. Now, unless you think that the arms race was actually a good thing, I don't like the EU commiting to increase spending in this area. Why? Because I don't want the EU to become a military force. We should invest in peace not war.0 -
I'll crack open a new case of champagne
Make mine a cava. I'm not fond of champagne!You're right - low interest rates don't equal asset bubbles.
However, when an asset bubble is obviously comming down the tracks (it's not like no one saw this coming!) you don't just sit there adding fuel to the fire.
Anyway, we have gone somewhat off point. My original point here is that the EU's and Ireland's interests aren't always the same. This was as a response to the necessity of the nation-state comment. Hopefully we can put this to bed now.
Yes, I think we're in agreement that the ECB don't set interest rates specifically for Ireland. I don't think I ever claimed that the rest of the EU's interests and Ireland's interests were always the same, either.They are as accountable as members of the Council, which are also directly elected. I wasn't arguing this.
Well, slightly more, I would say, since we don't actually elect someone to be a minister.Don't go all Austin Powers on me now
I gave examples already for why I don't like this article, there is no need to restate them.
Well, "the end justifies the means"....I mean, come on, I wasn't saying anything like that!I think that any extra money spent on military spending is better spent elsewhere. Now, unless you think that the arms race was actually a good thing, I don't like the EU commiting to increase spending in this area. Why? Because I don't want the EU to become a military force. We should invest in peace not war.
Well, this is certainly a point worth debating, I think, because there's no denying that the Lisbon Treaty is aimed at improving the military capabilities of the "EU" (or, rather, the member states together), at least in some senses, and I certainly think people who object to that would be better served by voting No.
However, to come to some of the points...first, the EU is not committing to increasing spending, but to improving capability. One of the major ways they aim to accomplish this is through reducing inefficiencies in military spending - through centralised logistics, and reduction in duplication between national forces. They're aiming to reduce the cost of military spending, although of course there's absolutely no guarantee that will result in a reduction in actual military spending!
What it's not doing is expanding the military power of the EU...the EU itself only has a total of 3,000 soldiers readily available to it (two 1,500 strong battlegroups) - which come from national forces. Where all 27 countries agree, then other national forces can be made available to the "EU" - which is to say, they can operate under the EU flag. They remain national forces.
So the EU won't become a military force in any sense - it will still have no soldiers, no navy, no air-force.
So, again, if you feel that increased military efficiency is itself a bad thing, feel free to say why - but the EU is not committing any member state to increasing its military forces, or increasing its own (although, obviously, you're welcome to say why that is not so!).
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Yes, I think we're in agreement that the ECB don't set interest rates specifically for Ireland. I don't think I ever claimed that the rest of the EU's interests and Ireland's interests were always the same, either.Scofflaw wrote:I think what's good for German farmers is often good for Irish farmers - and what's good for Irish businesses (EU cutting of red tape, for example) is good for other European businesses, yes.
I simply responded to this comment, specifically related to business. True investment opportunities are good, but rapid inflation is not.Scofflaw wrote:Well, slightly more, I would say, since we don't actually elect someone to be a minister.
Ok I will accept this
Scofflaw wrote:Well, "the end justifies the means"....I mean, come on, I wasn't saying anything like that!
True you weren't. However, I feel that extending Article 308 can provide a source of too much power. I think it's unnecessary, and I guarantee that it will be used, though perhaps in ways we do not want.Scofflaw wrote:Well, this is certainly a point worth debating, I think, because there's no denying that the Lisbon Treaty is aimed at improving the military capabilities of the "EU" (or, rather, the member states together), at least in some senses, and I certainly think people who object to that would be better served by voting No.
I totally agree. Do you hold this view Scofflaw?Scofflaw wrote:However, to come to some of the points...first, the EU is not committing to increasing spending, but to improving capability. One of the major ways they aim to accomplish this is through reducing inefficiencies in military spending - through centralised logistics, and reduction in duplication between national forces. They're aiming to reduce the cost of military spending, although of course there's absolutely no guarantee that will result in a reduction in actual military spending!
Improved capability often is seen as "investment" might I add.
(Though I accept your efficiency point)What it's not doing is expanding the military power of the EU...the EU itself only has a total of 3,000 soldiers readily available to it (two 1,500 strong battlegroups) - which come from national forces. Where all 27 countries agree, then other national forces can be made available to the "EU" - which is to say, they can operate under the EU flag. They remain national forces.
Military "power" - can consist of aspects of quantity but also authority.Article 188 wrote:The Union shall mobilise all the instruments at its disposal, including the military resources made available by the Member States, to:
— prevent the terrorist threat in the territory of the Member States;
— protect democratic institutions and the civilian population from any terrorist attack;
Not saying there is anything wrong with preventing terrorism, but will a UN mandate be required for mobilising militiary resources?Article 28B wrote:All these tasks may contribute to the fight against terrorism, including by supporting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories.
Again what is terrorism here?
Are we signing up to another Iraq war here waged in the name of terror prevention?
Kurdish separatists are considered terrorists by Turkey. But what about Kurdish views on the matter? This is to highlight that terrorism can mean different things to different people.
Will this require a UN mandate?Scofflaw wrote:So, again, if you feel that increased military efficiency is itself a bad thing, feel free to say why - but the EU is not committing any member state to increasing its military forces, or increasing its own (although, obviously, you're welcome to say why that is not so!).
It's funny I searched the treaty for the words "militiary efficiency(ies)" and couldn't find them. Plenty of improved "militiary capabilitilities" however.
I am concerned that these integrated defence policies will begin to circumvent the UN and potentially lead to new atrocities of "Iraq" proportions.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Will we consider the rest of the points laid to rest?
OK thenScofflaw wrote:No, I'm OK with the suggested improvements in military capability. I don't oppose anything and everything military - but if people do, I would certainly see that as a reason for them to vote No.
Are there any other valid reasons for voting no in your opinion?Scofflaw wrote:I would agree with that, but "military authority" never killed anyone I know of - that's usually done by soldiers ("military quantity").
Again, if you are saying that by virtue of being 'lent' soldiers, the EU acquires military 'authority' (the iron fist in the velvet glove, if you like), then that's true. Do you see that as a bad thing? If so, may I ask why?
Will these armies by coordinated by the EU *foreign minister* Commissioner?
My concerns about still relvolve around military actions without UN sanction and Ireland being implicated.Scofflaw wrote:Interesting question. It is generally accepted that a UN mandate is a badge of legitimacy in military actions, but I would think that in the case of anti-terrorism actions in non-EU countries, the EU might feel it didn't require a UN mandate. In the case of EU countries, the solidarity clause provides a legal basis for such intervention.
Are you happy with that though? The US didn't feel it needed a UN mandate to invade Iraq and look at the devastating consequences.
Is there much need for a UN when countries take it upon themselves to determine if their military actions are justified. I'm sure the Chinese feel justified about their actions in Tibet...However, (1) no EU country can intervene in another EU country without the agreement of that (and every) country; (2) the EU cannot intervene in a non-EU country without the agreement of every EU country; and (3) Ireland cannot be involved in any such action anyway unless there is a UN mandate.
True Ireland can't be directly involved without a UN mandate, but can we claim to have a clear conscience when by voting for the treaty we are blessing the other members of the EU to act without one. Will Ireland be tarnished by the EU's brush, so to speak?Scofflaw wrote:I'm going to quote from an article on Jane's Defence Weekly, entitled "New EU Treaty worries US Intel Services":
You tell me - does that sound like the EU will be a willing partner/follower/copier of the US "war on terror"?
Well the UK and Spain certainly were. "War on terror" will always be in the eyes of the beholder. These aren't exactly assurances that the EU will not engage in such actions.
...could this be because it never had the authority to?Scofflaw wrote:I'm not. The EU shows no signs of acting in that way,
... George Bush certainly convinced a wide variety of countries to support his War on Terror, that was only 7 years ago.Scofflaw wrote:and the idea that you could actually line up all the 27 EU countries in order to commit an aggressive war seems amazingly far-fetched.
... I don't believe wars ever are described initially as 'aggressive' but rather for the good of man kind... but somehow they usually end up that way.Scofflaw wrote:It's also worth bearing in mind that Ireland effectively has a veto on such an action, and also that such action can be undertaken today (as it was for the Iraq invasion), just not under EU auspices.
Could you please elaborate on 'effectively'Scofflaw wrote:What, in particular, bothers you about the EU doing these things?
Simple: Ireland will be implicated in any 'mistakes' that occur. Somehow we are supposed to be a neutral country.0 -
Will these armies by coordinated by the EU *foreign minister* Commissioner?
My concerns about still relvolve around military actions without UN sanction and Ireland being implicated.
Are you happy with that though? The US didn't feel it needed a UN mandate to invade Iraq and look at the devastating consequences.
Is there much need for a UN when countries take it upon themselves to determine if their military actions are justified. I'm sure the Chinese feel justified about their actions in Tibet...
Well, a UN mandate is usually taken as being an acceptable way of certifying that a military action is 'legitimate' and 'above board'. Even the US claimed to be acting under a UN mandate in Iraq, although nobody accepted that view.
The UN cannot stop the US doing what it likes, but that doesn't make it irrelevant.True Ireland can't be directly involved without a UN mandate, but can we claim to have a clear conscience when by voting for the treaty we are blessing the other members of the EU to act without one. Will Ireland be tarnished by the EU's brush, so to speak?
Only if we accept EU actions that we don't agree with.Well the UK and Spain certainly were. "War on terror" will always be in the eyes of the beholder. These aren't exactly assurances that the EU will not engage in such actions.
A country that wants to perform such an action through the EU has to persuade 26 others...the "EU" doesn't engage in such actions at all....could this be because it never had the authority to?
It seems to have the authority to act in Chad, doesn't it?... George Bush certainly convinced a wide variety of countries to support his War on Terror, that was only 7 years ago.
... I don't believe wars ever are described initially as 'aggressive' but rather for the good of man kind... but somehow they usually end up that way.
I didn't say a war "described as aggressive" - I said an aggressive war. However it is described, it will be fairly clear what it is, at least to the national governments of the EU.Could you please elaborate on 'effectively'
Any EU action requires the agreement of all 27 member states - that's a veto.Simple: Ireland will be implicated in any 'mistakes' that occur. Somehow we are supposed to be a neutral country.
No, we are a "non-aligned" country - which is to say we did not join NATO, or the WW2 Allies, although in both cases it is very clear whose side we were on.Are there any other valid reasons for voting no in your opinion?
Euroscepticism - which is to say honestly being against the whole idea of the EU project. And anyone who actually understands the EU, and feels that it should and could go a different direction.
I disagree with both those groups of people, and would certainly argue with their views, but as long as they have those views, they should obviously vote No.
The latter group, by the way, are much rarer than they think they are!
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement