Why are you voting yes

Keano

Why are my voting yes?

It seems that most politicans are on the Yes side - they never agree but are all on the yes side this time.

If Enda is actually siding with FF, then it has to be a yes for me!

Yes. An absolute moronic reason for voting Yes but I'll still vote.

Het-Field

1.Structural Reform
-The reduction in the Size of the Cumbersome EU Commission
-The Reduction in size in the virtually redundant European Parliment
-Consistency with the 2 1/2 year term for the Council President
-Introduction of QMV to more policy areas which reduces the chances of needless vetos

2.Greater Accountability
-Greater Ability for National Scrutinise EU Legislation. A full 8 Weeks !
-The Citizen's Initiative which gives ordinary joe soap a chance to Influence EU Policy
-The EU will now consult National Parliments on the Issue of Expansion

3.Incorporation of the Charter Of Fundament Rights.
-As a PD Im a firm believer in Human Rights, and this Doucment increases their scope.

On the more faceous side, i would not want to be associated with Sinn Fein,Youth Defence,Libertas, SWP, Workers Party, Immigration Control Platform.

All the Parties are in favour I say Yes !

nesf

Keano A Legend wrote: »

Yes. An absolute moronic reason for voting Yes but I'll still vote.

It's not a bad one really. About the only time you can trust the feckers is when they're all in agreement about something. They rarely pass up even half a chance to take digs at each other.

ambro25

I'll be voting Yes.

I'd like to say "simply because I've been voting Yes to anything "EU" since 1990 in the several EU countries I've lived in since and, for me at least/from personal experience, the EU has delivered time and again".

But I've done my homework (being a legal type helps, as Sangre and nesf are right, the Treaty is rather dry), so instead I'll say "simply because Lisbon is just another stone to the house, the first brick was laid in 1957, and there's still a f*ck of a long way to go before we can even think about the roof".

The_Minister

dlofnep wrote: »

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.

*Stares*

*Keeps staring*

*Decides that dlofnep is not joking*


I was referring to countries, not tourism.
For instance we would be great political allies with the French (whose government and most of the opposition support the treaty), because we work on agriculture together. This often means that France backs us up on other issues, even those that they have no interest in.
The same with Britain.

Also, the reputation and standing of a country have a huge impact on its ability to negotiate. A big economy like the US can pretty much say "take it or leave it", but a small, insignificant (we so are, even if we hate admitting it) country like Ireland requires a large amount of political currency to get things done on an international level.

If we get a reputation as a bunch of whingers who throw out every treaty because we have to compromise in it, even when EVERY other country involved is compromising too, and giving up something, then we will start to find Europe pretty damn chilly.

thebman

oscarBravo wrote: »

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? 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.

Well they'll lie about anything else and if you need evidence just read their election promises.

I think our politicians generally just take the path of least resistence especially when it comes to Europe and don't seem to think about anything other than it'll make us look bad to Europe rather than thinking is this good for Ireland.

I don't honestly believe they care about the future of the country and that they'll get people to vote yes because it means less hassle for them for a few years and then they don't care once they aren't in power and the country is stuck doing something stupid because Europe says so despite it not benefiting us at all.

My biggest fear would be that this treaty will pave the way for ridiculous anti-terrorist laws and the like. I would be extremely against anything like that on the grounds that you can't prevent terrorism, tough sh*t and taking away citizens rights and privacy just turns a country into a police state. I have heard mention of stuff like that in the media and although I take it with a grain of salt, I want to see for certain that this would not occur.

So far the only thing that has me in anyway in favour of this treaty is that it might lead to us having to allow abortion because I don't think agree with our abortion laws.

BTW thanks for the links and its not that I don't want to read them, I just haven't had time so if I seem as ignorant as before on the treaty, its not because I want to be. I'll read up on Lisbon at the weekend most likely.

dlofnep

The_Minister wrote: »

If we get a reputation as a bunch of whingers who throw out every treaty because we have to compromise in it, even when EVERY other country involved is compromising too, and giving up something, then we will start to find Europe pretty damn chilly.

Ohhh!! It will get "chilly". Well, I'd rather voice my democratic right, regardless of what it is - than be forced into a vote because things mighty get "chilly".

Keep staring, it doesn't make your opinion any more relavant than mine.

nesf

brim4brim wrote: »

I don't honestly believe they care about the future of the country and that they'll get people to vote yes because it means less hassle for them for a few years and then they don't care once they aren't in power and the country is stuck doing something stupid because Europe says so despite it not benefiting us at all.

If all of them were retiring after this term sure, but the vast majority of the TDs want to get re-elected and ****ing over the country now isn't going to help them achieve that. If there's one single thing you can trust about a politician it's their self-serving desire to get back in again or to get into power. Whatever about FF, it would serve FG and Lab in no way to **** over this country in the next few years and have it thrown back at them at the next election. They're just not that stupid.

nesf

dlofnep wrote: »

Ohhh!! It will get "chilly". Well, I'd rather voice my democratic right, regardless of what it is - than be forced into a vote because things mighty get "chilly".

Keep staring, it doesn't make your opinion any more relavant than mine.

Posts like this make me very glad that foreign policy is not something we need referendums on normally. We don't exist in a vacuum, voicing your democratic right is all well and good but if when doing so you deliberately ignore the realities of international politics you're not exactly making much sense. We need trading partners in case you hadn't noticed.

dlofnep

nesf wrote: »

Posts like this make me very glad that foreign policy is not something we need referendums on normally.

So someone differs in opinion to you and you have to respond in such a manner? Mature nesf, very mature. When I'm not putting up with moderation "staring" at me, I have to put up with this. I have a voice in Lisbon, deal with it.

nesf

dlofnep wrote: »

So someone differs in opinion to you and you have to respond in such a manner? Mature nesf, very mature. When I'm not putting up with moderation "staring" at me, I have to put up with this. I have a voice in Lisbon, deal with it.

See, you're entitled to your opinion and you're entitled to vote in whatever way you choose but if you decide to post about it on here you're open to getting your posts picked apart and trying to hide behind "it's my opinion" so you don't have to respond to valid criticisms is just going to earn you sarky responses from people like myself.

dlofnep

nesf wrote: »

See, you're entitled to your opinion and you're entitled to vote in whatever way you choose but if you decide to post about it on here you're open to getting your posts picked apart and trying to hide behind "it's my opinion" so you don't have to respond to valid criticisms is just going to earn you sarky responses from people like myself.

I've no problem with being criticised, but I don't appreciate being talked down to (which has happened on numerous occasions). You could go about your points in a much more mature manner.

I believe I made a valid point when I said I'd rather not make my vote based on pressure from what "I should or should not do". Democracy is about free will, is it not? But according to you, you'd rather there was no vote. Well, there is and that's how it works.

dlofnep

And I see you conveniently edited your post now to include "criticism" instead of a cheap one liner.

sink

dlofnep wrote: »

So someone differs in opinion to you and you have to respond in such a manner? Mature nesf, very mature. When I'm not putting up with moderation "staring" at me, I have to put up with this. I have a voice in Lisbon, deal with it.

Foreign policy is a very complex area. Brown, Berlusconi and Bush are just some of the world leaders that are useless at it. I don't think he was trying to insult you in anyway, foreign policy is more art than science. And most people here respect your right to vote your conscience but if you raise a point of view here people will poke holes in it, that's the purpose of public forums.

dlofnep

sink wrote: »

Foreign policy is a very complex area. Brown, Berlusconi and Bush are just some of the world leaders that are useless at it. I don't think he was trying to insult you in anyway, foreign policy is more art than science. And most people here respect your right to vote your conscience but if you raise a point of view here people will poke holes in it, that's the purpose of public forums.

Sink, I quoted his original reply. It was a one-liner cheap pop. I've no problem with people criticising my posts, so long as it's respectful and constructive.

nesf

dlofnep wrote: »

And I see you conveniently edited your post now to include "criticism" instead of a cheap one liner.

If you look at the post you can see by the lack of an edit time on it I added those sentences within 60 seconds of the post, i.e. four minutes before you initially replied to it. After looking at it I felt a single one liner was unfair. I often edit in extra material to my posts after posting them.

I never edit a post to avoid criticism or fault or escape having to admit I was wrong and if you are insinuating that I did then you need to learn how to read edits before you accuse people of crap like that on here.

dlofnep

nesf wrote: »

If you look at the post you can see by the lack of an edit time on it I added those sentences within 60 seconds of the post, i.e. four minutes before you initially replied to it. After looking at it I felt a single one liner was unfair.

Yes it was unfair, which is why I responded to it. I'm in work, so I don't get to click reply straight away. I had quoted you and that is what I had read up to that point which is in my quote.

Like I said before - I believe we are given the right to vote and should use it, regardless of what pressure is placed upon us. Not everyone is banking on this passing, some will like it - some won't.. We can't suit everybody, but we do have the right to vote and should vote for us and not for anyone else. If their governments wish to give them the vote, then so be it - but if they don't, then that's where their democracy has failed them..

nesf

dlofnep wrote: »

I had quoted you and that is what I had read up to that point which is in my quote.

Then check to see that edits weren't added in after you reply in future before accusing people of editing their posts to escape your comments.

dlofnep

nesf wrote: »

Then check to see that edits weren't added in after you reply in future before accusing people of editing their posts to escape your comments.

You had already made your comment and were satisfied with it when you clicked reply. You felt you could get a quick one in. My original argument stands.

nesf

dlofnep wrote: »

You had already made your comment and were satisfied with it when you clicked reply. You felt you could get a quick one in. My original argument stands.

I wasn't satisfied with it after rereading it, without the additional sentences the point wasn't clear. It's not as snappy as a single line but the criticism still stands, attitudes like yours of "**** em, we shouldn't have to care what they think" are completely unhelpful in the context of international politics and this is an EU treaty we're voting on not a local council election.

dlofnep

The context in which I placed it was that it's not our fault if their government's did not allow them the right to have a voice and that we should vote for us, not for them.

and this is a EU treaty we're voting on not a local council election.

Keyword being "we" - The people of Ireland. We are voting for what's in Ireland's best interests. We can't please everyone. And like I said, I won't make a vote that I don't agree with just because the governments of the EU will not give a voice to their people.

nesf

dlofnep wrote: »

Keyword being "we" - The people of Ireland. We are voting for what's in Ireland's best interests. We can't please everyone. And like I said, I won't make a vote that I don't agree with just because the governments of the EU will not give a voice to their people.

I don't think you get me. We shouldn't vote for the people of France etc. We should vote in our own interests, and maintaining good political relations is in our self-interest. Voting against this treaty will hurt us politically within the EU, it won't maintain the "status quo" if by that you include our political standings with other nations.


Honestly, I'm as selfish as the next person, if this Treaty benefited us but screwed over the French and they didn't get a referendum, I'd still vote yes with a clear conscience. It isn't our job to bring our style of democracy to their country similar to how it isn't their job to inflict their tax rates on us.

dlofnep

nesf wrote: »

I don't think you get me. We shouldn't vote for the people of France etc. We should vote in our own interests, and maintaining good political relations is in our self-interest. Voting against this treaty will hurt us politically within the EU, it won't maintain the "status quo" if by that you include our political standings with other nations.

Holland and Frances relations are just fine in the EU. Ours will be too.

sink

dlofnep wrote: »

Holland and Frances relations are just fine in the EU. Ours will be too.

I'm not sure about Holland but France has definitely lost a lot of support, especially with the Germans. Granted this is for a many different factors but the Constitution rejection definitely had an impact.

dlofnep

sink wrote: »

I'm not sure about Holland but France has definitely lost a lot of support, especially with the Germans. Granted this is for a many different factors but the Constitution rejection definitely had an impact.

That goes WAY beyond the it. They will never see eye to eye for a number of reasons.. The fact that Holland is doing just fine is proof of this.

nesf

dlofnep wrote: »

That goes WAY beyond the it. They will never see eye to eye for a number of reasons.. The fact that Holland is doing just fine is proof of this.

Holland doesn't extract as many opt-outs to common policy as we do though and is normally an exemplary member of the club. We can be awkward at times even when we're not rejecting treaties. It's similar with the UK.

anotherlostie

Mary Lou and the Shinners want me to vote No.

That's reason enough for me to vote Yes.

dlofnep

nesf wrote: »

Holland doesn't extract as many opt-outs to common policy as we do though and is normally an exemplary member of the club. We can be awkward at times even when we're not rejecting treaties. It's similar with the UK.

All I'm saying is, Dr. Pepper. I'm voting no, and the outcome of a no vote won't be in anyway, shape or form the death of Ireland.

sink

dlofnep wrote: »

All I'm saying is, Dr. Pepper. I'm voting no, and the outcome of a no vote won't be in anyway, shape or form the death of Ireland.

I don't think either one of us is saying a no vote will be the "death" of Ireland or anything remotely close. It will cool off relations and we will loose some good will, but it's nothing we won't be able to recover in a year or two. In the interim we will have to negotiate the WTO doha round and some good will in the EU will go along way, and that is just one issue.

nesf

dlofnep wrote: »

All I'm saying is, Dr. Pepper. I'm voting no, and the outcome of a no vote won't be in anyway, shape or form the death of Ireland.

And no one sane or rational is saying that it'll be the death of Ireland, they're just pointing out that we'll lose quite a bit of political favour in Europe if we reject the Treaty. We won't be thrown out of the EU or anything extreme like that but the next time we want to get something added to a Treaty the cost will most likely be higher.