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

Why are you voting yes

Options
13567

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Which is exactly my point.. Nothing major will come of us, so why even bother to mention it?


  • Options
    #63
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Which is exactly my point.. Nothing major will come of us, so why even bother to mention it?

    Weakening our bargaining position in Europe for no good reason isn't major?


  • Options
    #64
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Little events that most people consider inconsequential very often have very serious events. Who knows how a loss of good will could effect us, we can't predict the future but it is still a factor to consider.


  • Options
    #65
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    nesf wrote: »
    Weakening our bargaining position in Europe for no good reason isn't major?

    I don't think it would be substantially weakened. Do you?


  • Options
    #66
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    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.
    Dr Pepper, as in "what's the worst that could happen"? The answer is, I don't know and neither do you. The results of a "yes" vote are pretty clear, and are spelled out in the Treaty (bar some implementation details). The results of a "no" vote are anyone's guess at this stage.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    dlofnep wrote: »
    I don't think it would be substantially weakened. Do you?

    Substantially in this context could mean anything you want it to mean.


  • Options
    #68
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Dr Pepper, as in "what's the worst that could happen"? The answer is, I don't know and neither do you. The results of a "yes" vote are pretty clear, and are spelled out in the Treaty (bar some implementation details). The results of a "no" vote are anyone's guess at this stage.

    Hardly - "Pretty clear" isn't a phrase I'd use to describe the Lisbon Treaty. It's cryptic at best. The results of a no vote are just as predictable, if not - even more predictable. Nothing changes, relations with countries may moderately change for a little bit, and restabilize again.


  • Options
    #69
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    nesf wrote: »
    Substantially in this context could mean anything you want it to mean.

    I mean it in the context of actually making the slightest difference in how we live our lifes. I'm guessing, no.


  • Options
    #70
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Nothing changes, relations with countries may moderately change for a little bit, and restabilize again.

    Or it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back and we get a few doors shut in our faces over it or lose out on funding allocation etc. These things don't happen in "isolation".
    dlofnep wrote: »
    I mean it in the context of actually making the slightest difference in how we live our lifes. I'm guessing, no.

    Considering how complex these things are, I don't think you can say either way. It's a long way from Brussels to live in Waterford, and it's very hard to predict what could happen along the way.


  • Options
    #71
    KERPAL
    Closed Accounts Posts: 570 ✭✭✭KERPAL


    Im not sure, it seems that the Treaty is one step closer to tax harmonisation, and that cannot be a good thing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    nesf wrote: »
    Or it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back and we get a few doors shut in our faces over it or lose out on funding allocation etc. These things don't happen in "isolation".

    I'm all for closing a few doors. The EU laws are a joke [usually the criminal benefits]


  • Options
    #73
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    KERPAL wrote: »
    Im not sure, it seems that the Treaty is one step closer to tax harmonisation, and that cannot be a good thing.

    It's not though, we keep out veto on that. Tax harmonisation is something we need to fight against, weakening our bargaining position in the EU isn't going to help us here. It's been an issue since the start and while we've got some new allies in the new members (many of whom make us look like a high tax country) we're still up against a major bloc of central European countries who take a much bigger tax take overall (in terms of GDP) than we do (we're take in around 30% of GDP in tax, Sweden takes in over 50%, France is at 45%, Germany around 40% etc).

    There's an interesting paper here discussing developments and trends in EU taxation policies upto about 2005 if you're interested: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/3996/1/MPRA_paper_3996.pdf

    We're roughly in the bottom fifth in terms of tax rates in EU terms, some of the new member states are running lower tax rates than us but not many and not by much either.


  • Options
    #74
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    nesf wrote: »
    Considering how complex these things are, I don't think you can say either way. It's a long way from Brussels to live in Waterford, and it's very hard to predict what could happen along the way.

    So, we can't see the future. That's life I guess, we'll all have to take a big gamble in the voting booth.


  • Options
    #75
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    I'm all for closing a few doors. The EU laws are a joke [usually the criminal benefits]

    If you believe that, and have that little like of the EU, then that's a good reason to vote No.


  • Options
    #76
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    dlofnep wrote: »
    So, we can't see the future. That's life I guess, we'll all have to take a big gamble in the voting booth.

    Sure, but it's not exactly rational for us to weaken our bargaining position without having good reason to do that, and assuming you're not against the EU in principle, then there isn't a whole lot wrong with this Treaty. If you're of the opinion that we should pull out of the EU, that's a different story but if you want us to stay in the EU it makes no sense to weaken our position within it without it being worth it. Fighting tooth and claw against tax harmonisation is worth it, randomly rejecting treaties for no good reason isn't.


  • Options
    #77
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    The Lisbon Treaty already weakens our position in the EU nesf. No, I'm not against the EU in principle, I just don't agree with everything in the Lisbon Treaty.


  • Options
    #78
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    dlofnep wrote: »
    The Lisbon Treaty already weakens our position in the EU nesf.

    How so?


  • Options
    #79
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    nesf wrote: »
    How so?

    The EU has numerous additional powers, our weight in the EU is lessened, automatic commissioner right is removed, and reduces voting strength in the COM by half - all leading to more centralised power.


  • Options
    #80
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Off home now - we'll continue this tomorrow nesf. Night.


  • Options
    #81
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Hardly - "Pretty clear" isn't a phrase I'd use to describe the Lisbon Treaty. It's cryptic at best.
    The treaty text is somewhat obtuse. The effects are less so, and have been spelled out in great detail. I've provided lots of links. If you haven't read them, you really ought to.
    The results of a no vote are just as predictable, if not - even more predictable. Nothing changes, relations with countries may moderately change for a little bit, and restabilize again.
    That's assuming that the EU just shrugs and says fair enough, we spent six-odd years negotiating the thing, but if Ireland doesn't want it, we'll just forget about it.

    We don't know what happens if Lisbon isn't ratified. The EU is going to go somewhere, and we just simply don't know where. It's beyond naive to assume that a "no" vote permanently copperfastens the status quo.
    dlofnep wrote: »
    The EU has numerous additional powers...
    What additional powers?
    ...our weight in the EU is lessened...
    By what measure? Double-majority arguably strengthens our position.
    ...automatic commissioner right is removed...
    That goes away in 2009 if we vote no, and not until 2014 if we vote yes.
    ...and reduces voting strength in the COM by half...
    What?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    dlofnep wrote: »
    The EU has numerous additional powers, our weight in the EU is lessened, automatic commissioner right is removed, and reduces voting strength in the COM by half - all leading to more centralised power.

    Everyone is affected by the reduction in the size of the commission equally. Germany 20 times our size will still only have as a equal say as we do.


  • Options
    #83
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Oh and the commission don't vote on anything, they propose legislation.


  • Options
    #84
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    dlofnep wrote: »
    The EU has numerous additional powers, our weight in the EU is lessened, automatic commissioner right is removed, and reduces voting strength in the COM by half - all leading to more centralised power.

    There are no new exclusive competencies, the new ones are all shared which gives us wriggle room so to speak and they're not on key issues like taxation which would seriously affect our economy. Everyone loses their automatic commissioner and the commissioner don't get regional briefs anyway so it's not that big a change when the MEP's increased say is taken into account, where we, by forming alliances with other like minded countries, can fight things we dislike from passing through.

    I don't think the Treaty weakens our position any more than it weakens everyone elses, what matters is relative strength in these things. If the commissioner rotation was only for smaller countries it'd be a very different situation.


  • Options
    #85
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    What?

    I imagine this is where it's coming from:
    An Phoblacht wrote:
    The Lisbon Treaty alters the way decisions are taken at the European Council. The already complex qualified majority voting procedure will be changed. The result is that Ireland’s weighted voting strength will be reduced by more than 50 per cent.
    At the same time, the threshold determining a qualified majority will be significantly reduced. Taken together, these changes will reduce the power of smaller states and increasingly replace consensus decision-making at Council with majoritarianism.

    The full list of 20 reasons to vote no is here: http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/23479


  • Options
    #86
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    An Phoblacht wrote:
    The Lisbon Treaty alters the way decisions are taken at the European Council. The already complex qualified majority voting procedure will be changed. The result is that Ireland’s weighted voting strength will be reduced by more than 50 per cent.
    At the same time, the threshold determining a qualified majority will be significantly reduced. Taken together, these changes will reduce the power of smaller states and increasingly replace consensus decision-making at Council with majoritarianism.

    I would love to see the mathematical formula they used to come up with that little gem. We loose up to 50% ability to block legislation granted, so does everybody else in equal measure. But we gain 50% ability to push trough legislation. And the big states are handicapped by the 4 country rule, which means they will need to bargain with smaller countries.


  • Options
    #87
    coolbeans
    Registered Users Posts: 3,092 ✭✭✭coolbeans


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    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.

    Read my bloody post before you go ranting.
    Look lets get two things straight here. I don't and likely never will vote FF. Secondly I think the PK show is excellent. However, when I hear a loony argument which I know not to be true, I say to myself this guy is moron. More than that he's using scare tactics and sheer lies to further his cause. I'm not going to listen to that rubbish.
    I will however listen to a cogent and factual argument as to why we should vote no and judge it on it's merits.


  • Options
    #88
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    coolbeans wrote: »
    he's using scare tactics .

    And Cowen isn't using scare tactics by threatening to throw out FF memers if they vote no?


  • Options
    #89
    coolbeans
    Registered Users Posts: 3,092 ✭✭✭coolbeans


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    And Cowen isn't using scare tactics by threatening to throw out FF memers if they vote no?

    I wouldn't call that scare tactics I'd call that towing the party line. That's what a chief whip is for. Bringing things like the legalisation of abortion, cannabis, cocaine, gay marriage etc into the argument is what I call using scare tactics.
    I also see posters all over the place 'informing' me that we'll lose our right to determine our own rates of corporation tax which AFAIK isn't true.
    Back to my original thread (which you conveniently ignored); one of the main reasons I'll be voting yes (at the moment) is because the EU has been responsible for virtually all of our vital environmental legislation. I want more of that because FF sure as hell don't have the balls to draw up hard laws that are good for the entire country and not just developers and fat cats.

    FF members or TDs? If it's members then it's probably fairly harsh alright but **** 'em, I've no time for FF at all. If they don't like it then let them stand by their convictions and walk out......fat chance of that happening.


  • Options
    #90
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    It is scare tactics no matter how you want to sugar coat it.
    FF members or TDs? If it's members then it's probably fairly harsh alright but **** 'em, I've no time for FF at all. If they don't like it then let them stand by their convictions and walk out......fat chance of that happening.

    Blame the idiots who keep voting FF in year after year for over 10 years. I don't feel sorry for the Irish anymore. You get what you deserve eventually. The Irish want to vote for a party that does nothing for them then they deserve to get nothing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    carveone
    Registered Users Posts: 1,228 ✭✭✭carveone


    coolbeans wrote: »
    I wouldn't call that scare tactics I'd call that towing the party line. That's what a chief whip is for. Bringing things like the

    Darn right. I remember some moaning TDs during a reshuffle being rapidly disciplined by Ahern and I'd say Cowen is much less sympathetic. Plenty of other parties available; would you like to form your own? You could call it the DPs...
    legalisation of abortion, cannabis, cocaine, gay marriage etc into the argument is what I call using scare tactics.

    Standard end-of-the-world nonsense from the usual crowd. We all remember 1993 and the contraception/divorce hysterics. That was complete lunacy.
    I also see posters all over the place 'informing' me that we'll lose our right to determine our own rates of corporation tax which AFAIK isn't true.

    I presume you mean paper posters on poles not posters to boards.ie. Have you seen the current ones? "People died for your freedom. Vote No". Nice. I'm tempted to say "Yeah, mostly American and British troops, with some unrecognised Irish...", but that might start a flame war!


Advertisement