Why are you voting yes

utick

Here is where you explain yourself for voting yes to the eu constitution.
What do you think it will improve for life in ireland

coolbeans

utick wrote: »

Here is where you explain yourself for voting yes to the eu constitution.
What do you think it will improve for life in ireland

No offense but a large part of the reason I'll be voting yes is because most of those advocating a no vote seem like a bunch of morons. Listening to Pat Kenny the other day and this guy starts spouting stuff about how voting yes will result ininter alia the legalisation of cannabis and cocaine as well as prostitution. Further more he starts bringing the rights of the unborn child into the equation basically implying that we'll be forced to accept the legalisation of abortion. He kept on ranting in this way for a good ten minutes. Basically if he's on one side I want to be on the other.
Other more 'rational' reasons include the EU's committment to environmental protection; something the Irish government couldn't give a toss about. Virtually all our environmental legislation was foisted on us by the EU. God knows what the country would be like if we didn't have Brussels making the hard decisions that our populist Fianna Fail governments(without the fada) are only too happy to shy away from.

dresden8

Because Bertie told us that if we didn't vote yes the Europeans would **** us up big time in revenge for not voting the way they wanted.

The_Minister

dresden8 wrote: »

Because Bertie told us that if we didn't vote yes the Europeans would **** us up big time in revenge for not voting the way they wanted.

1. That is not what he said.

2. We won't be ****ed out of the Union. Everyone will just be pissed off at us and we will lose alot of goodwill.

Sangre

Having actually studied EU law I'd probably know more than the average joe on the EU so I thankfully don't have to take everything at face value. I haven't heard one decent argument from the No Side (that isn't misinformation or a lie) to vote no. Most of the Treaty merely streamlines a lot of the EU and is much needed, its currently overly bureaucratic.

In fairness Sangre,you either agree or disagree with concepts such as European foreign representatives/ministers/presidents and the dilution of the nation state.
If one disagree's on the grounds of nationalism,thats a good enough if quirky reason for voting no.

Of course all nationalist parties in the Republic don't see it that way obviously.
I couldn't care less about whether those concepts are advanced or not either.
For the first time in my life though and against the grain of my normal thinking,I'm leaning towards a protest vote on something unrelated to the treaty.
That may change before the referendum.

passive

Sorry; questions. When's the vote? And can one vote (yes) in absentia?

oscarBravo

June 12, and no.

dresden8

The_Minister wrote: »

2. We won't be ****ed out of the Union. Everyone will just be pissed off at us and we will lose alot of goodwill.

I never said we would be thrown out.

"Pissed off at us and we will lose a lot of goodwill" is specifically a threat in that we will pay for it in another way later. Or are you suggesting that they will just put us on the naughty step for five minutes and then we'll say sorry and have a hug?

Anyway, if we do vote no Cowen will tell the Europeans we are just stupid and he'll make us vote again. Happened before, will happen again.

dresden8

dresden8 wrote: »

Anyway, if we do vote no Cowen will tell the Europeans we are just stupid and he'll make us vote again. Happened before, will happen again.

Have you any evidence of this?
We voted quite a few times on Divorce iirc and eventually it got through.
Are you playing that old chessnut that people aren't allowed to change their minds?
Why bother have any election either so? The one in 1922 was fine,we can put the gt grandchildren of those elected in the Dáil as long as they stick rigidly to 1922 policy...After all a change of mind isn't allowed.
See'ing as this is whats being advocated,I'd better put it into practice straight away..
[Enters 1922 mentality as I was never allowed to evolve to a newer opinion than that (or was it 1801?)]

Now wheres my Wife she should have my clothes washed by now and the dinner on the table.
It's not good enough.
What are all those women doing in the Dáil-get them out of there.Thats not allowed-they should be at home washing the floors that I as a man am perfectly entitled to dirty again and order a re wash immediately.

Hop to it Mná na h'Éireann,we aren't allowed to be asked again about anything so really you have no rights other than be told by us the men of Ireland what to do.
I want 14 children too because thats what Archbishop McQuaid said must ultimately be the consequences of me and the wifes bedroom antics.

Now say your prayers-theres only one Church and ye are all going to hell if ye don't obey it.
We weren't allowed to vote a change of attitude there either.

etc etc...

dresden8

Deleted User wrote: »

Have you any evidence of this?
We voted quite a few times on Divorce iirc and eventually it got through.
Are you playing that old chessnut that people aren't allowed to change their minds?
Why bother have any election either so? The one in 1922 was fine,we can put the gt grandchildren of those elected in the Dáil as long as they stick rigidly to 1922 policy...After all a change of mind isn't allowed.
See'ing as this is whats being advocated,I'd better put it into practice straight away..
[Enters 1922 mentality as I was never allowed to evolve to a newer opinion than that (or was it 1801?)]

Now wheres my Wife she should have my clothes washed by now and the dinner on the table.
It's not good enough.
What are all those women doing in the Dáil-get them out of there.Thats not allowed-they should be at home washing the floors that I as a man am perfectly entitled to dirty again and order a re wash immediately.

Hop to it Mná na h'Éireann,we aren't allowed to be asked again about anything so really you have no rights other than be told by us the men of Ireland what to do.
I want 14 children too because thats what Archbishop McQuaid said must ultimately be the consequences of me and the wifes bedroom antics.

Now say your prayers-theres only one Church and ye are all going to hell if ye don't obey it.
We weren't allowed to vote a change of attitude there either.

etc etc...

Eh, what?

Simple.
You imply that one vote is enough.
You can never be entitled to change your mind on something.
So I suggested by that logic we should go back to the first free state vote in 1922 and readopt everything that was law and the usual then as lets face it as we were never entitled to move on or change our mind about that society that we voted on-then we must revert to it.

Your logic.

I'll bet you don't go around never changing your mind on something.

dresden8

I don't think the people changed their minds. The yes people just got off their arses and mobilised their lazy voters better.

In the interests of fairness the referendum should have been run again thereafter to see if the no people could have mobilised their base better.

As it stands the Nice vote was a score draw.

The only difference to our lords and masters was that we got it "right" the second time.

I respectively disagree.
A government was returned to office that had as one of it's manifesto promises a re run of the referendum.

No party has been elected to govenment on a mandate of a no vote to nice.

thebman

Sangre wrote: »

I haven't heard one decent argument from the No Side (that isn't misinformation or a lie) to vote no. Most of the Treaty merely streamlines a lot of the EU and is much needed, its currently overly bureaucratic.

All I've heard from the yes side is it streamlines the EU. Nobody actually says how yet.

Personally I don't have a problem with streamlining the EU but if its at the cost of something important then no I don't think its worth it. So who's say is removed or reduced in this streamlining process?

From what I've heard and read, it seems Ireland gets less of a say after it than before it which is enough reason to be against it IMO. There is a lot of everyone is expected to benefit and everyone will be compromising etc... but there is little reason give for why need to give we can just leave it the way it is.

What is so broken about the way things are at the moment that we should vote yes to this? Personally I dont' see it but I think it has the potential to get very bad if we vote yes to this. Screw being shunned by Europe for a while, they don't exactly think fondly of us at the moment IMO, at best they just don't give a sh*t about us.

dresden8

Deleted User wrote: »

A government was returned to office that had as one of it's manifesto promises a re run of the referendum.

No party has been elected to govenment on a mandate of a no vote to nice.

It's highly disingenuous to suggest that a government was re-elected by riding a wave of popular support for a re-run of the Nice referendum.

Why?
Was there any party elected riding a wave for a re run to get a no to Nice ?

Just like theres none championing a ban on divorce and a referendum on that going to get into power anytime soon.
My point being the initial no to nice vote blocked Nice.
It did what it said on the tin.
It was fairly obvious that it was a fluke and unrepresentative vote given that a higher turnout at the second one together with promises on neutrality delivered a yes vote.

That vote carries the same stronger validity compared to the previous no vote as our yes to divorce referendum did towards our no to divorce votes.

I've always found this "ah they'll run it again" attitude both laughable for it's un democratic nature and just pure undemocratic for it's ignoring of peoples right to change their mind.

thebman

Deleted User wrote: »

Why?
Was there any party elected riding a wave for a re run to get a no to Nice ?

Probably because most people vote for the politician seen to be doing the most for their local area as he is the good guy and all the others are useless.

The whole all politics are local thing.

Yeah but that would include what the local politicians views on Nice were.
Evidentially there were more people who wanted a re run of Nice than didn't which is the essence of democracy.

oscarBravo

brim4brim wrote: »

All I've heard from the yes side is it streamlines the EU. Nobody actually says how yet.

The Treaty says how, as do many of the guides floating around the Internet. This one is quite good.

From what I've heard and read, it seems Ireland gets less of a say after it than before it...

That's not the impression I've been getting.

For those of you who are convinced that Ireland is being sold down the river at every turn by this Treaty: why do you think the government signed it?

There is a lot of everyone is expected to benefit and everyone will be compromising etc... but there is little reason give for why need to give we can just leave it the way it is.

What is so broken about the way things are at the moment that we should vote yes to this? Personally I dont' see it but I think it has the potential to get very bad if we vote yes to this. Screw being shunned by Europe for a while, they don't exactly think fondly of us at the moment IMO, at best they just don't give a sh*t about us.

As I look at the pro and con arguments on this treaty, I think the best analogy I've seen comes from Scofflaw: that of being a member of a club. It doesn't matter what kind of club; the raison d'être of any club is to facilitate its members in achieving something that's of mutual benefit to them all, and that they can't as readily get individually.

Most of the "no" arguments I've seen amount to questions about what's in it for Ireland specifically. Most of the "yes" arguments tend towards the treaty being good for the EU generally, and what's good for the EU is good for its members.

How long would a club last if every time a decision had to be made, one member constantly dug his heels in and refused to endorse it until all his own personal demands were met? Scofflaw asked the question in another thread: how long before the club decides it's better off without the troublesome member? Does the EU need us more than we need it?

Predictably, the import of the question was ignored, but it's worth exploring.

Hotblack Desiato

coolbeans wrote: »

Listening to Pat Kenny the other day and this guy starts spouting stuff about how voting yes will result ininter alia the legalisation of cannabis and cocaine as well as prostitution. Further more he starts bringing the rights of the unborn child into the equation basically implying that we'll be forced to accept the legalisation of abortion. He kept on ranting in this way for a good ten minutes. Basically if he's on one side I want to be on the other.

You have to wonder at those guys stuck in some sort of 1950s timewarp. I'm sure he would be shocked to learn the number of people in this country who think that legalised drugs, prostitution and abortion would be a good thing. Of course, it hardly needs to be said that all of his arguments are complete nonsense.

Anyway. I'll be voting Yes, not for coke and hookers, but to make the EU work better and be more democratically accountable.

The power of the commission needs to be reduced and face more checks and balances from the EU Parliament. Lisbon does this. The commission needs to be reduced in number as there are simply not 27 meaningful jobs to go round. Lisbon does this also.

Vetoes on all and sundry were not such a problem with 6 members, with 27 getting anything at all done without reducing the number of areas subject to veto will be difficult. Lisbon does this, while maintaining our national vetoes on defence and taxation. The system of qualified majority voting protects the interests of small countries and arguably enhances them compared to the status quo.

Lisbon increases the powers of the EU Parliament and introduces the citizen's initiative, both increasing the democratic accountability of the EU.

It's all good as far as I can see, and there's not a single No argument I've heard that stands up. Unless you are opposed to the EU in principle, I can't see any rational reason not to vote Yes. (Even if you are opposed to the EU in principle, it's arguable that you should vote Yes as it will be beneficial to Ireland's interests to do so. Also Lisbon actually introduces a method for a country to leave the EU if it chooses... )

JohnMc1

No offense but a large part of the reason I'll be voting yes is because most of those advocating a no vote seem like a bunch of morons.

So you're going to vote Yes and possibly give up any rights/freedoms in your own country because you don't like Pat Kenny and you think the No crowd are morons? This is why Ireland is **** atm because of stupid thinking like that. Crying about Bertie and Fianna Fall for 10+ years and still voting them in.

If the Treaty is so good there wouldn't be such vagueness and huge secrecy about it.

nesf

JohnMc1 wrote: »

If the Treaty is so good there wouldn't be such vagueness and huge secrecy about it.

There isn't vagueness and secrecy about it. It's just not a document you can reduce into a one line slogan. The text of the Treaty is up online if you want to read it, there are numerous guides around. Really, the information is there if you want it.

The single biggest problem with the Treaty is that it's a treaty between multiple countries which makes it very very dry, boring and difficult for most people to read. This isn't "intentional" though, it's just how law and foreign policy works.

JohnMc1

nesf wrote: »

There isn't vagueness and secrecy about it. It's just not a document you can reduce into a one line slogan. The text of the Treaty is up online if you want to read it, there are numerous guides around. Really, the information is there if you want it.

The single biggest problem with the Treaty is that it's a treaty between multiple countries which makes it very very dry, boring and difficult for most people to read. This isn't "intentional" though, it's just how law and foreign policy works.

I read it and got the booklet this morning. If Fianna Fall and Fianna Gael want us to vote yes then they should publish their own pamphlets stating what Ireland has to gain or lose by voting Yes or No for the Treaty.

nesf

JohnMc1 wrote: »

I read it and got the booklet this morning. If Fianna Fall and Fianna Gael want us to vote yes then they should publish their own pamphlets stating what Ireland has to gain or lose by voting Yes or No for the Treaty.

They should indeed. But the information is up online for you to find out what it's about. It's not like they're keeping it a big secret or that we're not allowed but a glimpse of the Treaty or something silly like that. Part of the responsibility of a voter is to educate themselves, not just to wait around to be educated about what they're going to be voted on.

They've a five point list here: http://www.vote4europe.ie/ towards the bottom of the page.

JohnMc1

nesf wrote: »

They should indeed. But the information is up online for you to find out what it's about. It's not like they're keeping it a big secret or that we're not allowed but a glimpse of the Treaty or something silly like that. Part of the responsibility of a voter is to educate themselves, not just to wait around to be educated about what they're going to be voted on.

They've a five point list here: http://www.vote4europe.ie/ towards the bottom of the page.

Thanks for that link. It still feels like we'll be giving up more of our rights by voting yes though.

dlofnep

The_Minister wrote: »

2. We won't be ****ed out of the Union. Everyone will just be pissed off at us and we will lose alot of goodwill.

Who will be p*ssed off at us? Who cares what people think? We should vote regardless of what people think. If their Governments didn't have the guts to give them a vote, it's not our fault. They can take it up with their Government. In saying that, I am sure the vast majority of the general population in Europe is none the wiser of what the Lisbon treaty even entails.. And if they are, I'm sure there will be those who congradulate us for voting no aswell as those who begrudge us for voting no.

This is no reason to vote yes. It's not democratic.

nesf

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Thanks for that link. It still feels like we'll be giving up more of our rights by voting yes though.

Our MEPs need to vote on more things though giving us a closer democratic link to the action. Which is a plus point for me. The EU has some new shared competencies which gives it "some" new power but it's shared with national government and it's not on the really big areas like Taxation. The EU gets no new exclusive competencies etc.

What rights do you think we'll give up by voting yes?

JohnMc1

nesf wrote: »

What rights do you think we'll give up by voting yes?

Who comes into this country and how many is my biggst concern. Ireland is not a huge country and we're already starting to feel the effects of overpopulation [increased crime and murder]

nesf

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Who comes into this country and how many is my biggst concern. Ireland is not a huge country and we're already starting to feel the effects of overpopulation [increased crime and murder]

We retain control of immigration from outside the EU afaik. EU citizens will be able to enter this country regardless of whether it's a Yes or No vote. One of the other guys might be able to give you more information on this.

sink

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Who comes into this country and how many is my biggst concern. Ireland is not a huge country and we're already starting to feel the effects of overpopulation [increased crime and murder]

I would say we're feeling the effects of under development, an infrastructure deficit and poor planning. This island is one of the least densely populated regions of Europe. The is no reason it could not support 15 - 20 million or more with the proper infrastructure and services. I'm not advocating we aim for 15-20 million people, i'm just pointing out it's possible.