Why are you voting yes

HalloweenJack

For democracy.

Ireland has a disproportionate amount of power. We have 4m residents, countries like Poland have 40m but we still have more power.

The UK and Germany have the same amount of voting power but there are more people in Germany. This is undemocratic.

For the common tax-base.

People saying it will take jobs away is stupid. If anything, it will bring jobs here. The new EU countries are offering 0% corporate tax at the moment so multi-nationals are going there. If there was a common rate of tax, this wouldn't happen.

turgon

Very misinformed post, in my opinion. If Irelands tax rates were incresaed, why would companies want to come here???? I suppose because even a box of cereal her is like twice the price it is in Poland

HalloweenJack

turgon wrote: »

Very misinformed post, in my opinion. If Irelands tax rates were incresaed, why would companies want to come here???? I suppose because even a box of cereal her is like twice the price it is in Poland

Very misinformed post yourself there.

I didn't say anything about tax rate increases in Ireland.

redspider

I havent decided which way I will vote yet.

For Irish voters, they should weigh up the decision-making process keeping the following points in mind:

- if a voter has not read the changed treaties in full, can they vote Yes with absolute confidence. If they cant vote Yes with full knowledge and confidence, should they just vote No to keep with the known status quo?

- if this Lisbon treaty is merely 99.9% of the previous rejected constitution, reformatted so as to avoid 'awkward' and possibly further rejecting referanda in countries such as France and the Netherlands, should we actually allow it pass whether it is right for us and for Ireland. ie: should people vote No to uphold the already taken democratic decision?

- if scaremongers among the Yes camp are using the FUD approach (fear, uncertainty and doubt), that Ireland would be taking a step backwards if it voted No (which the Referendum Commision have stated is not the case, the situation would be as it is now, ie: no change, no step backwards, the same). If Yes proponents are using such misinformation, should people vote No?

- if scaremongers among the No camp are using FUD as well and claiming that our tax controls will be lost, that miltary aspects will be against our neutrality, etc, is that a reason to vote Yes?

- in terms of the treaty changes themselves, if a person agress with 99% of the changes, but disagrees with 1%, shouldnt they vote No which would force the EU to change the proposal, or are Yes voters comfortable with allowing some negative aspects to be included for the items they agree with, the so-called 'greater good' ?

there are many questions ......

Most analysts think that the electorate that vote on average will not be in a position to fathom what the treaty actually means. You will get voters that will follow the party line regardless of whats being put before them, and with cross-party support bar SF (No) and the Green Party (undecided), the Yes camp have everything in their favour (even the date/day) and the No camp have a struggle on their hands.

Irish people are the only people who have a vote on this, which is also a telling factor in terms of democracy in the EC in some respects.

Vote wisely ....

Redspider

oscarBravo

You've already posted the above in another thread - repeatedly posting the same thing could be considered spamming.

thebman

I'm personally finding it very hard to take the no side seriously just from reading posts here and some of the websites.

I'm not really happy with the yes side either. I mean the governments website for this is basically propoganda that says why you should vote yes. Surely its purpose is to inform us on the treaty and not just talk up the good points or go on about all Europe has done for us. The website for the treaty should have the good and bad points on it if the government wants to let the people be informed voters.

I think its clear that isn't the case and that the government want a yes vote (which we all know) but are doing everything they can not to discuss or reveal the negative aspects of the treaty to people. This just creates fear, uncertainty and doubt among people.

If they told us what was good and told us what was bad and said look the good outweights the bad so you should vote in favour of it, I'd be more inclined to do so. As it is, I'm finding I have to go to other places to find lots of information about the treaty just becuase they are doing such a bad job of discussing both sides of it.

I know the government want a yes vote but surely its their duty to fairly inform the people of the contents of the treaty and not just talk about the bits they like. Its a bit annoying and condescending for the government to treat me like this I think. If I'm in doubt, I feel obliged to vote no on the grounds that I'm not informed on the treaty so since I know the way things are then I'm better to keep things the way they are rather than vote yes to something that could substantially change things when I don't know in advance what those things are.

---

summary

---

Basically uninformed voters is a bad thing IMO and I feel uninformed. I don't think I can believe a lot of the no campaign because I've seen too many lies and I suspect that lots of people that want to ruin this treaty in Europe are using Ireland as a platform to do this and throw dirt at the treaty and hope some sticks.

The whole thing is a mess TBH. At the moment, I want to vote yes because the government supports it and the opposition and most other parties but I don't feel confident about doing it because I'm uninformed and I don't think the government are trying to inform me, they are just trying to say look good things, vote yes instead of giving a balanced view of what the treaty is about.

cathalgarvey

HalloweenJack wrote: »

For democracy....For the common tax-base.

On the former, I actually somewhat agree with you, and Lisbon proposes to give us a more proportional power to push legislation we want, without reducing (in fact, increasing) our power to refuse legislation we dislike. Every country gets to push fairly, and small countries are protected from the larger ones using their (admittedly fair) leverage to force things through. Everyone benefits, especially considering that Ireland really only gives a toss when it wants to refuse something.

On the latter, as it's been stated many times before the Lisbon Treaty won't affect Irish taxation.
It's on this issue that I lose my EU idealism and actually rejoice that we'll get to continue our tax cheating trick. Ireland's success over the last few decades can be put down almost entirely to A) Handouts from the EU and Undercutting our EU buddies on Tax.

Lisbon empowers the EU government to make certain new decisions, which can be vetoed by individual governments in any case. Tax and defence are specifically exempted. Even if they weren't, Ireland could use the new veto powers afforded it by the Lisbon treaty to just ignore anyone trying to force a change in taxation.

And to clarify, seeing as I raised defence, Ireland is not signing the defensive or common foreign policy portion of the Lisbon Treaty. We're remaining completely neutral, exactly as we are now.

thebman

cathalgarvey wrote: »

On the latter, as it's been stated many times before the Lisbon Treaty won't affect Irish taxation.
It's on this issue that I lose my EU idealism and actually rejoice that we'll get to continue our tax cheating trick. Ireland's success over the last few decades can be put down almost entirely to A) Handouts from the EU and Undercutting our EU buddies on Tax.

Its not a tax cheating trick IMO. I find that insulting, it implies we are doing something wrong by having lower tax than other EU countries which isn't the case.

We are perfectly entitled to it and there should be tax competition same as competition in the private sector IMO. In any case, if we didn't get increased revenue by having lower tax rates, we'd need even more funding from the EU.

nesf

cathalgarvey wrote: »

Ireland's success over the last few decades can be put down almost entirely to A) Handouts from the EU and Undercutting our EU buddies on Tax.

No, while both were important factors, there were plenty of others which were just as, if not more, important.

is_that_so

If what Biffo, Enda or Gerry say decides how people vote then I wonder how well-informed some voters are or want to be. Getting someone else to do the hard work is not really making a decision.

I have finally read the treaty and understood it to the best of my ability(I hope ) and I am inclined to vote Yes for the following reasons

- An awful lot is not changing at all

-Much of what I read in it is just housekeeping and updating the EU treaty to reflect that.

- We need a better system for an enlarged EU.

- I have yet to find any of the fears that the "no" camp seem obsessed with.

- Much as I have some sympathy for any country that did not have an option other than parliamentary ratification it's really not our fight at all.
Odd that the No side have consistently chosen to criticise this "democratic deficit" yet at the same time they are also concerned about the EU butting in on our constitution.

- The voting changes in my view are covered and are essential to cover the many areas currently covered by QVM.

- It formalises how EU foreign missions may be influenced by a common policy. IMO this is a good thing, particularly if there is a need to decide the EU response to a crisis, like Chad, and Darfur(very poor).
Whether we like it or not the EU is already an economic and political bloc to rival the US, China and Russia. Much as individual countries paddle their own canoes in many areas here, some things are bigger than an individual country.

Articles 25-28 sum it all up and the so-called "militarisation issues" in Article 42 are vague at best.
Article 42.3 could mean anything , it's so vague and yet this is the one the No campaign has latched onto.

Anyway whatever way people vote make sure you read either the treaty itself or the very good Referendum commission booklet. Be informed and vote!

DVDMAN

I'll be voting YES, you have to ask yourself a bigger question weather Your in or out of Europe? I've made my mind up, I'm In.
Voting no is very English, were Irish and part Europe. it's about time we stood up and were counted internationally and stop this isolationism. The European Union is the best way a small country of 4 million people can be influential internationally.

turgon

DVDMAN wrote: »

I'll be voting YES, you have to ask yourself a bigger question weather Your in or out of Europe? I've made my mind up, I'm In.
Voting no is very English, were Irish and part Europe. it's about time we stood up and were counted internationally and stop this isolationism. The European Union is the best way a small country of 4 million people can be influential internationally.

Ok DVDMAN, you seem to be stating that if I vote NO that I am anti-Europe. By extension, you are implying that we should accept everything the EU throws at us simply on the basis that we agree with the EU in principal.

In my opinion this is very distorted. I am voting NO because I have read parts of the treaty, absorbed literature from the both sides of the fence, and neutrals, and made a rational decision based on a number of factors. The question we are being asked is whether we want to reform the EU, I am saying NO but that does not mean I am pro-isolation and anti-EU. All it means is that I want the EU to stay the way it is.

Vinegar Hill

turgon wrote: »

Ok DVDMAN, you seem to be stating that if I vote NO that I am anti-Europe. By extension, you are implying that we should accept everything the EU throws at us simply on the basis that we agree with the EU in principal.

In my opinion this is very distorted. I am voting NO because I have read parts of the treaty, absorbed literature form the both sides and neutrals, and made a rational decision based on a number of factors. The question we are being asked is whether we want to reform the EU, I am saying NO but that does not mean I am pro-isolation and anti-EU. All it means is that I want the EU to stay the way it is.

turgon....good post, well said. It seems if you say anything against this treaty now you are a Euroskeptic or anti-EU

turgon

turgon wrote: »

By extension, you are implying that we should accept everything the EU throws at us simply on the basis that we agree with the EU in principal.

Thats a stereotypical cynicism.
The EU doesn't throw things at us upon which we have to vote.
Governments negotiate them.

Actually Sinn Féin are at least being honest in that they are claiming the biggest reason for their no vote is that we can get a better deal.
I'm not sure they are being realistic in that expectation though.
Do they think for instance Ireland will get a permanent commisioner as bribery for voting yes after an initial no vote ?
So far the only reasons I've seen for voting no are spurious ones to say the least.

thebman

is_that_so wrote: »

Articles 25-28 sum it all up and the so-called "militarisation issues" in Article 42 are vague at best.
Article 42.3 could mean anything , it's so vague and yet this is the one the No campaign has latched onto.

See I have to ask the question that if their vague isn't that bad on an issue of absolute importance like going to war?

I don't agree with being roped into going to war because another country was attacked and I don't agree with an EU army on any level. We are individual states and each state should be allowed to determine if they want to go to war or not without fear of being bullied by the other nations afterwards.

I don't see the need for an EU army for Ireland TBH or anyone else. If a country wants to go to war to defend another country, it can do so without a clause in the Lisbon treaty.

These fears though that "we" will be forced into a European Army are vague and spurious claims aswell.
Theres no foundation,Rhyme or reason to them.
They are made up spuriously.

The facts are many,many of the countries in the EU are voluntarally members of NATO.Theres no compulsion on Ireland to join them and we have no say on what those countries do with their armies.
We've no say on whether they want to form new alliances with other countries armies or if they want to go to war themselves.
We can give an opinion but that has no effect.

Similarally they have no say on what we do in that regard.
To say otherwise is spurious.
To give into such spuriousness and follow the invented unfounded fear is laughable and nothing to do with Lisbon...other than of course an invention to promote a fear that has no foundation.

dalkener

ill be voting yes.

Because I want to see an end to Irish neutrality, we've sat on the fence to long and I'm embarassed of our stance in WWII. It's time we gave something back instead of take take take.

cathalgarvey

Look here, please, a wikipedia page detailing all the changes we've already made to our constitutions preparing for the Treaty. Note the Defence provisions: Ireland's neutrality is in no way affected by the Lisbon Treaty, as we have specifically exempted ourselves from the common defence provisions (and the common forein policy we are already a part of in any case).

I'll reiterate again that the perception that a "No" to Lisbon preserves the status quo is unfortunately wrong. Europe has come to a junction, and voting yes or no chooses a path in either case. Europe will change, because of the additional memberships and the host of requested ones, because of the economic downturn in the US, because of the food and fuel crises, because of our increasinly important role in the world.

The EU must adapt, and if it's not Lisbon it'll have to be a more hastily thrown-together affair that'll seem even sillier.

That sounds bad because it makes Lisbon sound slapdash, and it's not. I've read through the provisions, and the changes that Ireland will and won't adopt. Ireland's acceptance of Lisbon is not going to be complete, and you can read my writeup of the whole deal here.

Lisbon is a solid, great deal for Ireland. We get more power as a country, and as citizens. We will have a far greater ability to veto anything that we don't like in future with Lisbon.

As I've noted before, the No-vote crowds should love Lisbon more than the yes, because it empowers them to say "no" more in the future, and it empowers citizens like no other Treaty I've seen passed in recent years. And, most of the things that underpin the no-vote arguments are unfortunate misunderstandings of the Treaty's provisions.

turgon

Ok first of all

Lisbon is a solid, great deal for Ireland. We get more power as a country, and as citizens. We will have a far greater ability to veto anything that we don't like in future with Lisbon.

We lose veto powers in 60 policy areas. Please outline your thinking because it seems to be absolutely outrageously wrong.

dalkener states that he is embarrassed by Ireland's stance during WWII. If anything the policy of neutrality was admirable: not bowing under pressure from Mr. Churchill and David Gray. It also did not follow the traditional ignorant view of extreme Irish nationalists: lets invade Britain.

It took a lot more self control to be neutral in a world wide conflict than just say "ah feck this, lets just get guns and shot some people, just cause other people are doing it"

sink

turgon wrote: »

We lose veto powers in 60 policy areas. Please outline your thinking because it seems to be absolutely outrageously wrong.

We have opt outs for certain areas which may be incompatible with our national laws, such as justice and policing. In the remaining areas a combined approach is preferable as countries who act alone will have little effect, and if a unanimous decision was required you would have some countries using their veto as a bargaining chip to force their agenda in other areas, or you would have special interests ruling the day.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

Ok first of all

We lose veto powers in 60 policy areas. Please outline your thinking because it seems to be absolutely outrageously wrong.

Well, again, let's have some facts, please. Can you list the 60 areas, or name a source that does? Or are you simply taking a figure on faith?

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

turgon wrote: »

We lose veto powers in 60 policy areas. Please outline your thinking because it seems to be absolutely outrageously wrong.

Implying that you believe that we could go back to Europe and negotiate a better deal? Wouldn't the major parties, i.e. those with the most (or only) experience of European politics, backing this Treaty be a good answer to that question? The only party I've seen stating we could do better is Sinn Fein and they're not exactly a party with a lot of experience negotiating Treaties in Europe.

Plus, everyone else is losing them too and we've opt outs that everyone but the UK don't have etc. It's not like we're losing them and everyone else isn't.

The_Minister

Firstly, it is nowhere near 60.

Secondly, I don't place any great value on the veto on the European Space Programme. I didn't even know that there was one.

nesf

The_Minister wrote: »

Secondly, I don't place any great value on the veto on the European Space Programme. I didn't even know that there was one.

And you call yourself an informed voter...

The_Minister

Well, NOW I'm informed...:pac:

Onwards to Mars!

Azhrei

I think that, in the long term, the treaty is best for both Ireland and the EU, and so I'll be voting yes. It seems to me that many of the reasons people are pushing for a "no" vote are very short-term... not all, but most. In my opinion, at least.

heyjude

nesf wrote: »

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.

FF or FG and Labour have made up every government since the foundation of the state and so have been responsible for almost every cock up, waste of taxpayers money, incident of political mismanagement or poor judgement in relation to law making, state agencies and provision of state services, for which the government had some responsibility over that time period.

So the mere fact that they now agree on something carries very little weight, their past incompetance erases any credibility that they might have had. You wouldn't believe a conman or trust an incompetant fool, well no group tells more lies than the politicians do and in few walks of life is incompetance punished so little. So why trust them now, I mean FF said 5,000 people from Eastern Europe would move to Ireland after the 10 accession states joined and it turned out to be closer to 400,000. Could they have been more wrong ?

But don't worry, they got it completely wrong last time, but this time they will be right, because they say the treaty is 100% good for Ireland and there aren't going to be any nasty unintended consequences. If they are so sure though, why not make it a matter of honour and resign, if any of the predictions of the NO campaign are realised ? Its because even though they support the treaty, there aren't actually 100% sure that tucked away somewhere in its 300 pages, there isn't something nasty waiting to emerge and they aren't putting their neck on the line in case that happens.

Have any of our political leaders the courage to offer such a pledge that they will resign if any of the predictions from the NO campaign(which are on public record), come to be realised ???

nesf

heyjude wrote: »

FF or FG and Labour have made up every government since the foundation of the state and so have been responsible for almost every cock up, waste of taxpayers money, incident of political mismanagement or poor judgement in relation to law making, state agencies and provision of state services, for which the government had some responsibility over that time period.

Conversely they've been responsible for all the good policies made too. Political parties **** up as much as they get things right, it's the natural law of politics. It's no different in any other country.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not much of a fan of any of them, I view voting for any of them as being a least worst option out of a bad lot to be honest. It's just that normally they're like a bag full of cats fighting with each other over anything and everything. When they all march in line and agree on something, it definitely is worth noting.

Boggle

Really should look this up myself but am pretty much pressed for time these days so thought one of you guys might be able to answer it; If at a future stage down the road, the treaty is renegotiated or revised: how will it then be ratified? Would we, the people, have to vote again or would it be implicit that if the member states(politicians or whatever) pass it then any change can be made.

- basically most of the yes arguments seem to make sense but I'm wary of signing any contract unless I know that there are minimal unintended consequences - (at the same time I don't want to sit on the sidelines just to possibly maintain the status quo... if you get my meaning)

OK-Cancel-Apply

The Lisbon Treaty will make Europe stronger, and that's why the United States is funding the 'no' campaign. Sinn Fein also want a 'no' vote. I find the 'no' campaign to be run on the exploitation of people's fear of the unknown, and the propagation of half-truth, myth and misunderstanding. Just remember - there are some big bucks behind the 'no' campaign, but not everything on the posters is true. Take them with a pinch of salt and read through the booklets again if you are unsure.

I've read and understood the constitutional amendments, and I'll be voting a big YES.

Let's integrate, and boldly march toward the future.