UCD Students And The Treaty of Lisbon

Breezer

This is a somewhat long post (even by my standards ) because it covers a PM conversation that I felt would be better posted publicly. I'm quoting PM's between myself and Four-Too, with Four-Too's permission:

Four-Too wrote:

Irish law is not too bad yet considering that we actually have a ref on the Treaty, European law cannot overrule us if we vote against it.
You have described how Ireland has problems here and there, okay the health service is in crisis, but there is alternative medicine like Chinese available nowadays also. Unemployment highest for 10 years!!! That's not an arguement, it's still very low, why have we foreigners still coming into the country then??
You want some perfect society or smthn - no dude, cannot have. Simple.
Europe cannot run Ireland from Brussels, it is unworkable, those in charge of an island should be living on that island. There could be so many things going wrong here, but nobody would here our voice any more! Cause our population is only very small % of that of the EU. Democracy = finished!

And my reply, edited slightly to remove the chit chat:

Breezer wrote:

Your first point is very true, Europe cannot rule us if we vote against it. This treaty grants limited powers to Europe and allows us to retain our veto in many key areas, so we can keep voting against things we disagree with. Much as I would like to be completely independent, it is not possible: we tried it for 50 years after the Civil War and look where it got us. I accept the trade off that giving up a limited amount of our sovereignty to Europe results in us receiving many financial and diplomatic benefits.

I'm a medical student, so perhaps I'm biased, but if I'm suffering acute organ failure I want a hospital bed and a team of staff trained in evidence-based medicine looking after me, not a herbalist. Chinese medicine has its place alongside western medicine, but it's not a replacement for it.

The number of foreigners coming into the country has fallen by 50% in the past year. I don't understand how you can claim that because unemployment is "still low" that it's OK for it to be at its highest level in 10 years. Rates of HIV infections are lower here than in sub-Saharan Africa, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the issue of HIV.

I don't want a perfect society, I know such a thing doesn't exist. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for the best society we can have. To be honest, I could equally say that you seem to be looking for a perfect society: all the benefits of complete independence with no regard for where the cash is going to come from.

Most of the above points are domestic issues and have nothing to do with Lisbon.

With regard your concern about our small population, I've pointed out on numerous occasions on these boards (maybe in the politics forum, in fairness) that under the new system of double majority voting to be introduced under Lisbon, small states like Ireland will actually have a greater say in how Europe is run. Currently, if the 12 largest states in Europe want something pushed through then it goes through, on account of their population. Under Lisbon, at least 15 states will need to vote for a proposition in areas where states do not have a veto. This favours the small states.

I'm a proud Irishman, and I understand your legitimate concerns about giving up too much power. But I don't think the points you are making about this treaty have any basis in fact. If you look at what the treaty actually says, rather than what Sinn Féin or Libertas are saying about it, you'll see that we have nothing to fear from it.

Four-Too's reply to this (again edited to remove the chit chat):

Four-Too wrote:

Our HIV rates not as high as sub-saharan Africa!! Thank God!! We tried to be independent for 50 years, and Ireland was in a mess?! Okay, people had to emigrate and stuff, but if people were really looking out for one ANOTHER, all should have enough to eat, and there should be at least some kind of work for people.
In fairness, I have some radical views on the way society should be run, which may confuse you. We are a big enough land mass to support waaaay more than 4million, if the food etc WAS being grown. We don't produce enough, and our farmers are getting a bad deal, we need fundamental CHANGE in the way the country is run, same for America, but I don't think the current candidates are going to make any real change. We have to get this notion of blatantly striving for wealth and prosperity out of our heads. It does not necessarily mean happiness in any case.
This Lisbon means the militarization of Europe, does it not? Giving them the go ahead means the EU would act like a single country, so now, instead of just a battle between 2 nations, we could have a battle between Asia and Europe for example, with disasterous consequences.

The EU is about people looking out for one another. Notice how since joining we now have net immigration rather than mass emigration. Yes, domestic policies played an important part, but so did EU subsidies.

You would appear to have a somewhat extreme socialist viewpoint. In an ideal world, I'd agree with you, but unfortunately it's been tried countless times in various countries and hasn't worked. Human nature is to be greedy, and we have to work around that. The EU is an answer to that: it allows capitalism to flourish, but also supports countries and groups who otherwise would be left on the fringes, with the view that they can then give back to the union and other countries later.

I've dealt with the militarisation of Europe earlier in this thread. Europe will "act as one country" if each country within it is in agreement and if the action would be in accordance with their own constitutional requirements (in Ireland's case, the triple lock). As I said to Panda, if you are against the military in general this may be unacceptable to you, but I think the vast majority of people recognise that the world is not a perfect place and armies are a necessary evil. Yes, diplomacy is the best route if it works, but appeasing Hitler didn't do much good back in the 1930's. There needs to be a Plan B.

Finally, you may be interested to note that under Lisbon the directly elected MEPs would have more power than at present. They would be given new legislative powers in several areas, including immigration, border control and the internal market. Also, as I've previously stated, they would have the power to reject the swearing in of the president of the European Council if the president's views (e.g. right/left) do not match those of the majority of MEPs, which gives citizens more power to influence the direction Europe takes. Furthermore, citizens themselves will have the unprecedented right to ask the Commission to propose a draft law on a subject if they gather at least one million signatures from a significant number of member states. So, Four-Too, if you want to change the way Europe does things, Lisbon actually empowers you to do that far more than the current system.

The_Minister

Breezer it is considered horrifically bad manners to publish PMs with someone without their permission.

Breezer

The_Minister wrote: »

Breezer it is considered horrifically bad manners to publish PMs with someone without their permission.

Em, yes, that's why I pointed out in my second sentence that I obtained Four-Too's permission

I've edited the post and made this fact bold just in case anyone takes offence. Wouldn't dream of posting it otherwise, don't worry. I'm a very mannerly right wing elitist

The_Minister

Breezer wrote: »

Em, yes, that's why I pointed out in my second sentence that I obtained Four-Too's permission

Good thing I'm moderating the eyeglasses forum:p

gliondar

Many people seem to be confused as to whether the Treaty is pro-business or anti-business. In a sense it is both and let me explain my take on why.

As I stated earlier the EU’s traditional commitment to “free and undistorted competition”, a key component of every EU treaty since the 1957 founding Treaty of Rome, has been relegated in the Lisbon Treaty by Nicholas Sarkozy, who upon removing the clause asked “what has competition ever done for us?” His idea is to have European business dominated by what he calls “National Champions”. This is code for protection of inefficient state supported industries to the detriment of European entrepreneurship and innovation, the growth companies that produce 80% of all new jobs in Europe.

What this means is in a sense 'Socialism for the Rich'. The poor and the middle class will have to pay for the large pay-rolls of government-owned or sponsored monopolies that act like businesses when profitable but all the risks of failure are passed onto the State when they fail.

This process has already begun in a massive scale in Europe recently in the banking sector. Take the nationalisation of Northern Rock. This is a classic example of the 'Socialism for the Rich' that Nicholas Sarkozy advocates:

If you or I set up a business and it goes bust we are held accountable for our debts, but if banks go bust, the bankers who are the wealthiest people in society get a bail out from government. This means the government directs taxes from the poor and the middle class to the already rich bankers. There is nothing capitalistic about this. Banks have been going bust since the dawn of time! Let them go bust and they will be more responsible in future.

Sinn Féin recognises that this carry-on is utterly immoral and only destroys the savings of the poor and middle class. This is a neo-liberal ideology and they have every right to be very afraid.

Free-marketeers and classical liberals also recognise this as utterly anti-competitive and only encourages reckless business practice. This also undermines entrepreneurship as how can a business compete with the resources of a state-backed monopoly?

This belief in 'National Champions' is the mentality held by the 'great minds' and 'social engineers' behind the Lisbon Treaty.

gliondar

I have just come across the most appalling video. It was a protest by MEP's at the signing of the Lisbon Treaty. I don't think this video needs any comment:

http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=zSjt4JEOpPs&eurl=http://snoedel.punt.nl/?gr=476770

The_Minister

Goodammit Gliondar, you made a really worthwhile, informative post, why follow it up with that.

Het-Field

I would hope Bertie would keep his nose out of this issue. In retrospect, I believe that if Bertie had stayed on any further than the 6th of May and was taoiseach at the time on the referendum, it would be highly likely that a no vote would transpire.

Mabye Mr Ahearn should keep his nose out of this issue now, and mabye sit down with his organisation and find better ways of selling a yes vote than scaremongering about a potential "disaster for the country"

nomorebadtown

i dunno about that...

everyone seems to love bertie now. people feel he was hounded out of office and the irish public will always rally to support the underdog (as they see it) in a case like this. Bertie can do no wrong at the moment as far as i can see.

Chakar

The referendum will take place in a fortnight's time. There has been a sustained campaign in these last two weeks. What are everybody's thoughts, questions and concerns regarding the Treaty so far?

Pride Fighter

The military wing of Fine Gael (the blueshirts) fought alongside Nazi Germany.
They are calling for a yes vote and as a result I am voting no.
Also
Gordon Brown=Facist
Sarkozy=Facist
Berlusconi=Facist
They can shove their facism up their arse.

arbeitsscheuer

You're awful loose with that word "fascism"...

I fail to see what possible tangible benefit this treaty brings either to me, the Irish population or Europe as a whole. The dodgy aspects of the treaty aren't even worth getting that worked up about either tbh... The whole treaty is a classic piece of opaque, vague, oblique legislation that is almost the EU's trademark.

I'll be voting no cos we, as Europeans, deserve better than this, quite frankly.

Actually look up this column Adrian Hamilton wrote in the Independent yesterday, his point of view is fairly on the ball...

Chakar

I'm not sure where PrideFighter is coming from but opposition to the Treaty itself because of personalities is rather misguided. Indeed Romano Prodi was the the Italian Prime Minister during the formulation of the Lisbon Treaty. It's only recently that the Silvio Berlusconi has become Prime Minister. However he will play a role in ratifying Lisbon in the Italian Parliament. The three main political parties are calling for a 'Yes' vote not just Fine Gael.

The Lisbon Treaty is comparatively different from the Nice Treaty allowing for the 2004 and 2007 European enlargements. Indeed Lisbon enables for further European enlargement, however this is not the edge that Nice had. The Lisbon Treaty will make the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding across the EU providing for a unified framework of human rights.

Nevertheless Lisbon is crucial for rebalancing the democratic deficit towards the European Parliament and national parliaments, which the latter can engage in meaningful discussion, debate and offer opinions. The European Parliament would see its decision-making powers extended the renaming of co-decision to Ordinary Legislative Procedure. The citizen initiative is to be applauded as it can attract the attention of the European Commission as the sole initiator of legislation to the validity of a proposal.

The Lisbon Treaty is undoubtedly complex as all legal documents are. However even more so given that this is a result of agreement between 27 EU Member State governments. It will allow the EU to be more effective and efficient while protecting our national interests. It will equip the EU to effectively tackle future challenges in justice and home affairs and climate change among other areas. It's fully in Ireland's and European interests that we ratify the Treaty.

TonythePony

What do our neighbours have to say -

Daily Telegraph - Secret Deal to persuade Ireland on EU Treaty
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1896187/Secret-deal-to-persuade-Ireland-on-EU-treaty.html


Irish referendum could scupper EU Treaty
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/2055562/Irish-referendum-could-scupper-EU-treaty.html


http://www.libertas.org/

Chakar

The British media is typically Euro-sceptic. Those articles are based on old news. Anyway we won't be basing our decision on the opinions of the corporate British media.

However there are still concerns regarding the WTO Doha talks, which are not related to the treaty. Already France and Ireland have joined together to oppose Commissioner Peter Mandelson's proposals in the Doha talks. It's unlikely that proposals as they are currently formed will pass the approval of either France and Ireland.

Libertas are unfortunately engaging in a campaign of scaremongering based on blatant lies and embellishment of the facts. This is characteristic of the No campaign.

FionnMatthew

I'm one of the "really, really don't care" people.

I am indifferent to the question of whether or not the treaty will benefit Ireland. I grow more and more nauseated by this country by the day, notwithstanding the fact that just about every other English-speaking country in the world is in just as disgusting a shape.

I am even less inclined to vote one way or the other because of the predictably idiotic campaign posters that are going up all over the place. "People died for your Freedom, vote No." No thanks. "YES for Ireland and for Europe." No thanks. "Look! Tits! Arse! Vote YES!" Why not get really cynical, and use fully blown penetrative pornography? It's not as if you could make any more of a mockery of the civil decision-making process of an ideal democratic state.

It's an effort not to get antipathetic, but I can't hurt the interests of every party, so I'm staying silent. I sincerely wish I wasn't automatically put on the register.

gubbie

One of the politicians puts it well down south
"Would you sign a document that you didn't understand?"

I also don't like the Yes side's argument of "Its good, vote yes" where as at least the No side are coming up with better arguments (although OTT)

thecoolfreak

gubbie wrote: »

One of the politicians puts it well down south
"Would you sign a document that you didn't understand?"

I also don't like the Yes side's argument of "Its good, vote yes" where as at least the No side are coming up with better arguments (although OTT)

The no side aren't coming up with any arguments other than pure halftruths. They are trying to scare the population into voting no by making sensationalist claims that simply aren't true. Such as we will lose our control over tax reates, etc. They should argue on the facts of the Treaty instead of trying to make stuff up as they go along

vote4pedro

gubbie wrote: »

One of the politicians puts it well down south
"Would you sign a document that you didn't understand?"

That really is a crazy argument, there was some No campaigner on the Pat Kenny show arguing that he wanted a treaty that every schoolchild in the country could read. For me that is completely ridiculous. Would 90% of people be able to make head or tail of a taxation bill, the Offences Against the State Act etc. etc.

Ive heard numerous no campaigners read aloud sections of the treaty, and say they are incomprehensible, and so we must reject the Treaty. Just how many of them can make sense of this article of the Social Welfare Act which I opened at random

16.—(1) The Principal Act is amended by—


(a) the deletion of section 191E (inserted by section 32(1)(c) of the Act of 1999), and


(b) the substitution in subsection (2) of section 191P (inserted by section 15 of the Act of 1999) for “pre-retirement allowance, disability allowance or farm assist” in each place where those words occur of “pre-retirement allowance or farm assist”.


(2) This section comes into operation on 4 April 2001.

So I suppose we should scrap the Social Welfare Act because the average schoolkid doesnt understand what section 191P is then?

gliondar

That really is a crazy argument, there was some No campaigner on the Pat Kenny show arguing that he wanted a treaty that every schoolchild in the country could read. For me that is completely ridiculous. Would 90% of people be able to make head or tail of a taxation bill, the Offences Against the State Act etc.

The US Bill of Rights has 260 words. This was explicitly written by the Founders so that every man, woman and child knew their rights to defend themselves against a tyrannical government which even Thomas Paine decried as at best a 'necessary evil'.

The entire U.S. Constitution has only 4400 words. The Founders were adamant that government be as transparent as possible. A government 'by, with and from' the people. Compare this to a Treaty that has over 170 pages of complex unassailable legal jargon which appears to contradict itself more often than the Bible.

Unfortunately during the course of the following 200+ years the US Constitution was ultimately abandoned and government breached through its constitutional bounds with things like the Patriot Act leading to the monstrosity we witness today. Nonetheless we should learn from history.

Politicians are not to be trusted. Our constitution should be clear and indisputable about the laws and rights that it delineates. To think that even the most educated amongst us, including our politicians, have not read this unintelligible treaty demonstrates the true danger of a Treaty designed to deceive.

"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly" ... "All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, former French President, Le Monde, June 2007

EU treaty 'same as constitution' [ which has already been rejected by the Dutch and the French ] says Valéry Giscard d'Estaing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7069181.stm

thecoolfreak

gliondar wrote: »

The US Bill of Rights has 260 words. This was explicitly written by the Founders so that every man, woman and child knew their rights to defend themselves against a tyrannical government which even Thomas Paine decried as at best a 'necessary evil'.

The entire U.S. Constitution has only 4400 words. The Founders were adamant that government be as transparent as possible. A government 'by, with and from' the people. Compare this to a Treaty that has over 170 pages of complex unassailable legal jargon which appears to contradict itself more often than the Bible.

Unfortunately during the course of the following 200+ years the US Constitution was ultimately abandoned and government breached through its constitutional bounds with things like the Patriot Act leading to the monstrosity we witness today. Nonetheless we should learn from history.

Politicians are not to be trusted. Our constitution should be clear and indisputable about the laws and rights that it delineates. To think that even the most educated amongst us, including our politicians, have not read this unintelligible treaty demonstrates the true danger of a Treaty designed to deceive.

"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly" ... "All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, former French President, Le Monde, June 2007

EU treaty 'same as constitution' [ which has already been rejected by the Dutch and the French ] says Valéry Giscard d'Estaing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7069181.stm

Simple fact is that we cannot have a legal document contain so few words and still regulate and govern effectively in today's world. Legal documents attempt to make provisions for all possible circumstances so we can have stability and certainty in our laws. How do you propose we draw up competition laws or taxation laws? They are complicated matters and so they often tend to have to set out in a very comprehensive manner. The Treaty is very clear in what it delineates. You have to work with it though and spend some time reading it. Our politicians have been advised by civil servants and to plegal experts. They know exactly what the Treaty states and its consequences. This argument that they haven't read it is rubbish. Going by the arguments that some of the no side are putting forward it would appear that not only have they not read it but they are making up their own Treaty as they go along

vote4pedro

gliondar wrote: »

The US Bill of Rights has 260 words. This was explicitly written by the Founders so that every man, woman and child knew their rights to defend themselves against a tyrannical government which even Thomas Paine decried as at best a 'necessary evil'.

The entire U.S. Constitution has only 4400 words. The Founders were adamant that government be as transparent as possible. A government 'by, with and from' the people. Compare this to a Treaty that has over 170 pages of complex unassailable legal jargon which appears to contradict itself more often than the Bible.

Unfortunately during the course of the following 200+ years the US Constitution was ultimately abandoned and government breached through its constitutional bounds with things like the Patriot Act leading to the monstrosity we witness today. Nonetheless we should learn from history.

Politicians are not to be trusted. Our constitution should be clear and indisputable about the laws and rights that it delineates. To think that even the most educated amongst us, including our politicians, have not read this unintelligible treaty demonstrates the true danger of a Treaty designed to deceive.

"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly" ... "All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, former French President, Le Monde, June 2007

EU treaty 'same as constitution' [ which has already been rejected by the Dutch and the French ] says Valéry Giscard d'Estaing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7069181.stm

So you say the US constitution and BoR simplicity is the way to go, yet then conceded that they were able to be create repugnant acts such as the Patriot Act, surely it was the simplicity of those documents that meant Roe v. Wade and numerous other issues could rumble on through the decades with different Supreme Court benches being able to find different meaning in the same simplistic words. Perhaps fleshing them out a bit mightn't have been such a problem...

And if politicians aren't to be trusted, why to we allow the legislature to create Acts which govern our every day lives, which many/most of the population wouldn't be able to understand if they sat down to read an article such as the one I mentioned above.

Pride Fighter

gliondar wrote: »

The US Bill of Rights has 260 words. This was explicitly written by the Founders so that every man, woman and child knew their rights to defend themselves against a tyrannical government which even Thomas Paine decried as at best a 'necessary evil'.

The entire U.S. Constitution has only 4400 words. The Founders were adamant that government be as transparent as possible. A government 'by, with and from' the people. Compare this to a Treaty that has over 170 pages of complex unassailable legal jargon which appears to contradict itself more often than the Bible.

Unfortunately during the course of the following 200+ years the US Constitution was ultimately abandoned and government breached through its constitutional bounds with things like the Patriot Act leading to the monstrosity we witness today. Nonetheless we should learn from history.

Politicians are not to be trusted. Our constitution should be clear and indisputable about the laws and rights that it delineates. To think that even the most educated amongst us, including our politicians, have not read this unintelligible treaty demonstrates the true danger of a Treaty designed to deceive.

"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly" ... "All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, former French President, Le Monde, June 2007

EU treaty 'same as constitution' [ which has already been rejected by the Dutch and the French ] says Valéry Giscard d'Estaing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7069181.stm

The best post of this thread, you certainly made you point brilliantly.
Personally I am Pro-Europe but I dont want a Federalised Europe controlled by Berlin, Rome, Paris and London who all have Right-Wing agendas that will lead us to ruin.

Het-Field

gliondar wrote: »

The US Bill of Rights has 260 words. This was explicitly written by the Founders so that every man, woman and child knew their rights to defend themselves against a tyrannical government which even Thomas Paine decried as at best a 'necessary evil'.

The entire U.S. Constitution has only 4400 words. The Founders were adamant that government be as transparent as possible. A government 'by, with and from' the people. Compare this to a Treaty that has over 170 pages of complex unassailable legal jargon which appears to contradict itself more often than the Bible.

Unfortunately during the course of the following 200+ years the US Constitution was ultimately abandoned and government breached through its constitutional bounds with things like the Patriot Act leading to the monstrosity we witness today. Nonetheless we should learn from history.

Politicians are not to be trusted. Our constitution should be clear and indisputable about the laws and rights that it delineates. To think that even the most educated amongst us, including our politicians, have not read this unintelligible treaty demonstrates the true danger of a Treaty designed to deceive.

"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly" ... "All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, former French President, Le Monde, June 2007

EU treaty 'same as constitution' [ which has already been rejected by the Dutch and the French ] says Valéry Giscard d'Estaing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7069181.stm

Giscard d'Estaing is probably the last person I would listen to and I would advise you to do the same. Pat Cox put it most aptly. He can go screw himself.

At the end of the day I think this campaign has been run poorly. Fianna Fail have done little or nothing to improve the Treaty in the public's eyes. Brian Cowan's glib statements including the claim that he will boot any dissenting FFer from the ranks, and the claim that if you vote no you are anti European, is not helpful. Furthermore, he has turned this into a party political issue by claiming that other parties need to do more. Fianna Fail dont need to go down the route of desperation and scaremongering, however, I am not suprised that Cowan has done so. Its in his nature. However, the true scenario is that FF are too good to need to do this

Fair fecks to Fine Gael, they got up off their arses months ago, and have fought for this treaty. However, I became annoyed at their use of the treaty to promote local councellors. The Labour Party are worse. Where I live, all you can see is the face of Labour Party nobodys who will contest next years elections. They have not robustly campaigned for a yes vote, and are clearly cagey about their member's reaction.

Gubbie. Read the treaty. Iv had my fill of "if you dont know vote no". There are ample impartial websites with copious amounts of information. I urge people not to go to the polls with no knowlege of the treaty at all. People must educate themseleves. Of course, unless you are Fionn Matthew, and dont intend voting at all, and are sickened by the whole thing. I can understand his position, even thought I wouldnt concur with it. But dont go to the poll voting No, with no knowledge of the treaty. Vote no on its merits. Not on one own failings to educate themselves

Chakar

Pride Fighter wrote: »

The best post of this thread, you certainly made you point brilliantly.
Personally I am Pro-Europe but I dont want a Federalised Europe controlled by Berlin, Rome, Paris and London who all have Right-Wing agendas that will lead us to ruin.

The Lisbon Treaty is a treaty amending previous treaties not a constitution to replace and revoke all previous treaties. There will not be a federalised European Union under the Lisbon Treaty as national parliaments will have greater say and will be allowed to submit opinions.

I wouldn't think that the Charter of Fundamental Rights would fit PrideFighter's idea of a 'right-wing agenda' included in the Lisbon Treaty to become legally binding.

The Treaty of Lisbon is a complex treaty that point isn't disputed. However the previous treaties of Nice, Maastricht were also complex. It is incumbent on the individual voter to inform themselves of the Lisbon Treaty rather than blindly believing the unsubstantiated 'arguments' from the No side. There is now more information available on the Treaty than ever before with booklets sent out to every house in the country. Indeed there are reasoned arguments aired on the radio, television and the newspapers on a daily basis with a debate taking place recently on Prime Time last week between Brian Lenihan, an IBEC representative, Declan Ganley and Mary Lou McDonald.

The three main parties along with the Progressive Democrats, Green Party TD's and Ministers and Independent MEP Marian Harkin comprising more than 90% of the Irish electorate support the Lisbon Treaty. That is a crucial point and remember we have to have the referendum as result of the Crotty judgement in 1987.

amos13

"I am one of the unholy alliance of the nazis, socialists and communists, and am voting No"

I quite resent that, I'm voting no for my own reasons, how am I a nazi, socialist or communist? I'm being labeled this way for having my own opinion? thats slightly unreasonable wouldn't you say.

Raphael

No more unreasonable than labeling the entire Yes party as right wing elitists, or the entire middle group as chronically indecisive, or chickens as road crossing maniacs.

Breezer

amos13 wrote: »

"I am one of the unholy alliance of the nazis, socialists and communists, and am voting No"

I quite resent that, I'm voting no for my own reasons, how am I a nazi, socialist or communist? I'm being labeled this way for having my own opinion? thats slightly unreasonable wouldn't you say.

This was done in good fun weeks ago on the basis that this isn't the politics forum and The Minister was bored

Guys, I'm gonna have to agree with what's been said here: there is no longer any excuse for not knowing what's in the treaty. Fine Gael have been campaigning for months and have posters up everywhere advertising public meetings. Fianna Fáil are finally doing so as well - Mary Hanafin was going around Dun Laoghaire last week, Micheal Martin was on the radio the other day and Brian Lenihan was in Blanchardstown. Mary Lou McDonald of Sinn Féin and Sen Eugene Regan of FG will be debating the treaty in Dun Laoghaire on the 7th. This is just places I've been, I'm sure it's the same all around the country. I've had about 6 brochures in the door on the subject, including the independent one from the Referendum Commission.

Read the brochures. Some of them are rubbish (on both sides) but if you read enough you'll understand what it's about. Listen to the debates. Talk to your TDs when you see them. Hear as many views as possible from both sides and then make up your mind.

And preferably (although fair enough if you disagree after informing yourself) realize that when FF & FG agree on something, Labour and the PDs agree on something, not to mention many unions and employers' organisations, that this is highly unlikely to be a bad deal! But for fecks sake don't vote either way out of ignorance, please.

RandolphEsq

For some reason I have this image of the bigwigs in Europe gathering in a country mansion the way they did in The Remains of the Day, and that they are dismissive and ignorant to the 'ordinary' man's views. They feel that the 'ordinary' man is a peasant who does not know what is best for him.
This I actually agree with to some extent i.e. Economic theory, Political theory; I do not understand how these work to the same extent as an Economist or a Politcal 'theorist' so I will place my trust in them to mak the right decisions. However I do not think this extends to law making per se, but to the implications and reasons for a certain law.
If only this Treaty could be passed without the need for a referendum in Ireland. The vast majority of people do not know what the Treaty is about, a smaller yet significant majority do not even care partly as a result of not understanding, but mainly because there is nothing to worry about. The whole point of the Treaty is to allow the E.U. make decisions more effectively as there are now 27 member states. The articles of the Treaty which the 'No' side fear are there not to appease the bigwigs' egos, but because they allow for greater unity between these 27 member states. Some freedoms must be surrendered, but it is for the greater good. You cannot have your cake and eat it.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

BrightEyes wrote: »

The whole point of the Treaty is to allow the E.U. make decisions more effectively as there are now 27 member states. The articles of the Treaty which the 'No' side fear are there not to appease the bigwigs' egos, but because they allow for greater unity between these 27 member states. Some freedoms must be surrendered, but it is for the greater good. You cannot have your cake and eat it.

We're in Ireland. We gotta think about ourselves first and europe second. The EU must come second to Ireland in all of our decision making. There's no point in throwing away our freedoms for the sake of appeasing anyone else.

Freedoms need not be surrendered. We simply vote no, keep our freedoms, and things proceed as before. It's very shortsighted to go on about the greater good and the needs of many, and reeks of propaganda.