If you can convince me to vote yes or no...

horsecrap

right, i no nothing about this treaty or anything about politics. i admit it. im ignorant to the whole lot.

but if you can convince me in 3 points or 3 sentences y i should vote either yes or no to lisbon, then il do it.
i dont want a big essay on the whole lot. just ur 3 best points for y i should vote.

johnnyq

We already have two threads on this, but to summarise,

The lisbon treaty will
1) Enforce a one child policy on you
2) Enforce incest programmes in schools
3) Enforce a europe wide beastiliaty orgy

/damn I miss the rolleyes emoticon

Please abstain unless you give it real thought

mikemac

I remember the Maastricht treaty as a young lad.
We were told if you turned 18 and were unemployed you'd be bundled into the army and sent to fight Europe's wars. A bit like National Service that the UK had back in the 1950's
Ah, so young and naive.

You'll hear loads of misinformation OP, from both sides. So read from a few sources

horsecrap

people always tell me i should 'use my vote'
no need to be a prick about it.johnnq

forkassed

If you want to put more power in less peoples hands vote yes!

Otherwise vote no.

johnnyq

horsecrap wrote: »

people always tell me i should 'use my vote'
no need to be a prick about it.johnnq

I'm sorry:(

If you go to the 'Why I should vote no' thread and look at the second and third post I think you will find the reasons why most people are voting no.

Mine is in bullet points so it will only take a few seconds to read.:)

oscarBravo

forkassed wrote: »

If you want to put more power in less peoples hands vote yes!

Otherwise vote no.

If you want to continue posting here, post arguments instead of slogans.

johnnyq

You might as well read the 'economist article' thread while you're at it.

Scroll down to the discussion me and nesf are having, it's very short, sharp and to the point.

Scofflaw

horsecrap wrote: »

right, i no nothing about this treaty or anything about politics. i admit it. im ignorant to the whole lot.

but if you can convince me in 3 points or 3 sentences y i should vote either yes or no to lisbon, then il do it.
i dont want a big essay on the whole lot. just ur 3 best points for y i should vote.

I guess mine would be:

1. greater democratic accountability - the MEPs we vote for get more control over the legislation produced by the Commissioners we don't vote for.

2. more coherency - presidency doesn't change every six months, and we get someone who can represent the EU as a 'foreign minister' (admittedly when all 27 states can agree on something)

3. proper commitment to sustainable development, climate change, human rights, and overseas aid - which is better than I'm getting out of our government anyway.

I've several more, but you asked for 3, so there you go.

cordially,
Scofflaw

utick

Scofflaw wrote: »

I guess mine would be:

1. greater democratic accountability - the MEPs we vote for get more control over the legislation produced by the Commissioners we don't vote for.

2. more coherency - presidency doesn't change every six months, and we get someone who can represent the EU as a 'foreign minister' (admittedly when all 27 states can agree on something)

3. proper commitment to sustainable development, climate change, human rights, and overseas aid - which is better than I'm getting out of our government anyway.

I've several more, but you asked for 3, so there you go.

cordially,
Scofflaw

1) Im not too impressed with the democratic process in the EU of late, this treaty/constitution was already rejected in France and Netherlands but they ploughed on anyway. Not a good example of democracy.

2)A foreign minister for the Eu sounds like the Eu is one country, which I dont think there is any doubt is what the eu will become sooner or later.


3)More taxes and bans on the way weather we like ot or not. Guess what? when you burn 1 litre of petrol the environment doesnt give a damn weather you paid 10 cent tax on it or 10 euros tax on the effect is the same, only real outcome is more taxes will mean higher inflation

WooPeeA

Wars and conflicts is well known scenario. Especially here in Ireland. But It's also the scenario of history of whole continent.

Never stopping conflicts and mass death.. The cause of it was always nationalism, religion or give oneself airs over the others.

War is the lost of civilization.. It's not a secret that the only way for peace is to become brothers and bring tolerance and equality in every corner of this land. We all know that but the history shows that it's the only thing that we never tried in the history.


"This noble continent (...) is the origin of most of the culture, art, philosophy and science, both of ancient and modern times. If Europe were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance, there would be no limit to the happiness, the prosperity and the glory which its 300 million or 400 million people would enjoy. . . ."
Winston Churchill


This speech was the inspiration for founding fathers of European Union. Churchill exactly described what the EU was formed for. And it's going on right way!! Our economy is growing very fast, we all are becoming richer, we don't need guards on the borders no more because we became brothers.. No other nations never made anything comparable to this in the world history. Especially on such a big scale.

Europe showed to the world once again where the modern civilization come from. :cool:

Of course EU is not perfect. Moreover! It's far from perfection but why don't we try to improve it together rather than destroy it?

bonkey

utick wrote: »

1) this treaty/constitution was already rejected in France and Netherlands but they ploughed on anyway. Not a good example of democracy.

Thats incorrect.

The constitution rejected in France and the Netherlands was discarded, and replaced by the newly proposed Treaty. This is exactly what a democracy should do. They didn't "plough on", they took a step back, came up with a new proposal, and restarted the process of acceptance.

2)A foreign minister for the Eu sounds like the Eu is one country,

You're free to choose not to call it a foreign minister if you like. The term isn't an official one, which is, I'm guessing, why Scofflaw put it in quotes.

3)More taxes and bans on the way weather we like ot or not.

So then it doesn't matter to you whether we vote yes or no in this regard. Me...if I'm going to be taxed or faced with bans, I'd prefer to see them coming from a more cohesive, widespread policy which could make a real difference, so that begrudgers would at least be denied the "what can one little island do" non-argument.

Guess what? when you burn 1 litre of petrol the environment doesnt give a damn weather you paid 10 cent tax on it or 10 euros tax on the effect is the same,

Indeed...but the more expensive it is, the less likely you are to burn it wastefully. When it becomes cheaper to insulate better, for example, then to just burn more heating oil, only an idiot will choose the higher heating bill.

ballooba

At the moment I anticipate I will vote No...
1) I don't understand the treaty.
2) I see no threat from maintaining the status quo.
3) I don't feel the need any more reason to decline it.

Dotsie~tmp

WooPeeA wrote: »

Wars and conflicts is well known scenario. Especially here in Ireland. But It's also the scenario of history of whole continent.

Never stopping conflicts and mass death.. The cause of it was always nationalism, religion or give oneself airs over the others.

War is the lost of civilization.. It's not a secret that the only way for peace is to become brothers and bring tolerance and equality in every corner of this land. We all know that but the history shows that it's the only thing that we never tried in the history.


"This noble continent (...) is the origin of most of the culture, art, philosophy and science, both of ancient and modern times. If Europe were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance, there would be no limit to the happiness, the prosperity and the glory which its 300 million or 400 million people would enjoy. . . ."
Winston Churchill


This speech was the inspiration for founding fathers of European Union. Churchill exactly described what the EU was formed for. And it's going on right way!! Our economy is growing very fast, we all are becoming richer, we don't need guards on the borders no more because we became brothers.. No other nations never made anything comparable to this in the world history. Especially on such a big scale.

Europe showed to the world once again where the modern civilization come from. :cool:

Of course EU is not perfect. Moreover! It's far from perfection but why don't we try to improve it together rather than destroy it?

Have you ever considered that our habit of intra-continental war might simply be refocused externally as the EU seeks to become a power bloc able to secure its own resources and interests. I think theres a race for position going on at the moment as large parts of the world emerge into first world status over the coming decades. There is a not too small possibility that it might not play out nicely. I think we are not seeing the trees for the woods here. Im with Plato on this one. The European union seems pretty benign to me in peace time. I just wonder what it might morph into in a more closely knit future. None of this is ever talked about public. The overall plan always seems to have been decided upon by political elites who probably consider people too stupid to have a say. They'd be right.

I still haven't decided how to vote

WooPeeA

Ronald Reagan said one day:

"It's the time for us to realize that we are too great nation to limit ourselves to small dreams"


We can bring this quote here to Europe and say that all European nations working together are too great to see the limits.

We can have the greatest space agency in the world, we can be the proof of brotherhood to the rest of the world for the next millenia... and do muuuuuch more!

Nobody in Brussels is against national independences. They all are not only EU citizens but also citizens of their own countries.


This treaty can bring us one more step closer to each other.

menoscemo

No because:
1) it is not fair to ask us to vote on behalf of everyone else and they don't get a chance.
2) I love Europe and it is fine as it is.
3) politicians are all a bunch of **** anyway.

uptherebels

bonkey wrote: »

Thats incorrect.

The constitution rejected in France and the Netherlands was discarded, and replaced by the newly proposed Treaty. This is exactly what a democracy should do. They didn't "plough on", they took a step back, came up with a new proposal, and restarted the process of acceptance.

except they didnt come up with a new proposal they just changed a few minor parts and changed the name.In the words of Bertie Ahern-"We changed the name, took out little sections of it, turned it around a bit and then called it the Reform Treaty.”
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2008/05/03/story61853.asp

oscarBravo

uptherebels wrote: »

except they didnt come up with a new proposal they just changed a few minor parts and changed the name.In the words of Bertie Ahern-"We changed the name, took out little sections of it, turned it around a bit and then called it the Reform Treaty.”
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2008/05/03/story61853.asp

After several years of negotiation and drafting, what would you suggest they do - scrap the whole thing and draw up something completely new, being careful to ensure that there was absolutely no overlap?

Two things spring to mind: first, those who complain about the treaty being substantially the same as the constitution don't seem to factor in the possibility that the bits that aren't the same may be the bits that those who rejected the constitution had a problem with.¹ Second, as the Irish Times pointed out yesterday, the only reason the original proposal was called a constitution in the first place was to satisfy Giscard d'Estaing's vanity.



¹ A third point to factor in is the very real possibility that those who voted to reject it did so as a protest vote against their respective governments, just as some "no" campaigners are urging people to do here.

bonkey

uptherebels wrote: »

except they didnt come up with a new proposal they just changed a few minor parts and changed the name.

So, even ignoring the name-change, you recognise that they came up with a proposal which was different to the one rejected....not radically different, but different.

Do you know what those "few minor parts" were? Do you know what the implications of the changes are?

On the face of it, it sounds like a reasonable thing to do. If you find something thats almost but not quite acceptable, then it would stand to reason that it may not need a complete reworking.

I'm a computer programmer. When I develop something thats not quite right, the first thing I do is tweak it to see if I can make it right. Only when I've run out of the "tweaking" options do I consider a rewrite, and even then its only as much as is necessary. I would, quite honestly, think my customers were mad if they thought I needed to rewrite completely from scratch, changing large swathes of detail every time that they said "not quite what we want".

uptherebels

oscarBravo wrote: »

After several years of negotiation and drafting, what would you suggest they do - scrap the whole thing and draw up something completely new, being careful to ensure that there was absolutely no overlap?

Two things spring to mind: first, those who complain about the treaty being substantially the same as the constitution don't seem to factor in the possibility that the bits that aren't the same may be the bits that those who rejected the constitution had a problem with.¹ Second, as the Irish Times pointed out yesterday, the only reason the original proposal was called a constitution in the first place was to satisfy Giscard d'Estaing's vanity.



¹ A third point to factor in is the very real possibility that those who voted to reject it did so as a protest vote against their respective governments, just as some "no" campaigners are urging people to do here.

Do you have any stats as for the reasons people voted no?,because I dont,so I cant comment on their reasons for saying no.The fact is it was rejected as a whole so changing minor issues that they felt were sticking points without considering that people might be objecting to the treaty as a whole isnt good enough.
I understand that they couldnt scrap it and start again but they could have
come at it from a different angle.Instead of again using one massive document that the majority of people cant understand/cant be bothered to try and understand a number of smaller treaties could have been used,so that they could have found the points that people really do have a problem with and sorted them out.(I understand that this method wouldnt be perfect and that trying to pass a number of treaties would also bring about their own unique problems.)

seamus

ballooba wrote: »

At the moment I anticipate I will vote No...
1) I don't understand the treaty.

I've seen a lot of this, "I'm voting No, because I don't know what I'm voting for". That makes no sense. Why not vote Yes? If you don't understand the consequence of your vote either way, then why are you choosing one over the other? Why not abstain altogether?

The ball is well and truely rolling on this now, and there is plenty of literature around to dig your teeth into. So either go and read it and make a decision, or don't vote at all.

sink

uptherebels wrote: »

Instead of again using one massive document that the majority of people cant understand/cant be bothered to try and understand a number of smaller treaties could have been used,so that they could have found the points that people really do have a problem with and sorted them out.(I understand that this method wouldnt be perfect and that trying to pass a number of treaties would also bring about their own unique problems.)

The problems associated with multiple treaties would be almost insurmountable. It costs a lot of money organising and campaigning for just one treaty. If you have 10 or 20 separate treaties you can multiply that 10 or 20 times. Also it's difficult enough to gain the public's attention for one treaty let alone 10 or 20 treaties in quick succession. Most people would get bored and stop caring and stop voting, leading to ever decreasing turnouts. Eventually the only people voting would be those with vested interests and those interests are rarely in the interest of the whole country.

oscarBravo

uptherebels wrote: »

Do you have any stats as for the reasons people voted no?,because I dont,so I cant comment on their reasons for saying no.

And yet, many people have told us that we should vote no on behalf of those who already rejected the Constitution. How many of them have detailed information about why it was rejected?

uptherebels

sink wrote: »

The problems associated with multiple treaties would be almost insurmountable. It costs a lot of money organising and campaigning for just one treaty. If you have 10 or 20 separate treaties you can multiply that 10 or 20 times. Also it's difficult enough to gain the public's attention for one treaty let alone 10 or 20 treaties in quick succession. Most people would get bored and stop caring and stop voting, leading to ever decreasing turnouts. Eventually the only people voting would be those with vested interests and those interests are rarely in the interest of the whole country.

But would the lack of interest be partly because people cant understand what they are voting for?
I didnt mean 10 or 20 but 4 or 5 treaties but I see your point.

uptherebels

seamus wrote: »

I've seen a lot of this, "I'm voting No, because I don't know what I'm voting for". That makes no sense. Why not vote Yes? If you don't understand the consequence of your vote either way, then why are you choosing one over the other? Why not abstain altogether?

The ball is well and truely rolling on this now, and there is plenty of literature around to dig your teeth into. So either go and read it and make a decision, or don't vote at all.

But wouldnt a no vote be a vote for leaving things the way they are

oscarBravo

uptherebels wrote: »

But wouldnt a no vote be a vote for leaving things the way they are

In the short term, yes. That includes the number of commissioners being reduced five years earlier than would happen if the treaty were ratified - and yet the loss of "our" commissioner is being put forward as a reason to vote "no".

In the longer term, the status quo isn't going to remain. Things will change, and if Lisbon isn't ratified, we don't know what the changes will be, or how they will affect us.

seamus

uptherebels wrote: »

But wouldnt a no vote be a vote for leaving things the way they are

As oB points out, yes and no.

Voting "No" without understanding what you're actually voting "no" for is as bad as voting "yes" without knowing what you're voting for.

In both cases, you're leaving it up to fate to decide whether or not your vote has done a good thing, so you may as well not vote at all. The outcome will be the same.

Coming with my current job's hat on, people rarely think they need anything until someone shows them an alternative. If you ask them, "Do you want to change?", they'll invariably say "No", usually followed with, "The way we do it now works fine for us". However, if you actually *show* them what that change is, more often than not, they'll be enthusiastic about the bits that make their job easier.

Voting "No" without reading about the treaty is just that - wasting your vote and possibly shooting yourself in the foot because you couldn't be bothered to see if there are better alternatives out there. I would rather that someone voted "No" because they had a list of reasons, rather than someone voting "Yes" just because someone told them to.

BlitzKrieg

my 3 reasons for voting 'no'

1 (and most important). There are too many points in this treaty (I just finished reading the website and the forum on europe summery) where how policies will work and new systems implemented are *left for a future date* I support most of these policies, like this one:

Citizens’ Initiative

The Lisbon Treaty proposes that a citizens’ initiative would allow for at least one million citizens from a significant number of Member States to ask the Commission to bring forward proposals on a particular issue. The Commission would be obliged to consider the proposal. The details of how this would operate have yet to be decided.

but without a system in place yet it can be easily buried by red tape after its passed which will make it worthless.

2. The EU common security and defence policy is a bit muddled from what I have read so far, its probably not so much the EU's fault more the Irish goverments failure to state its position (will military spending defitnally increase) they say they have given a non binding agreement to opt in to as many policies as they can, but which ones and how far?

3. Sort of a continuation of 2. The Irish government is not being clear where it wants to go with the treaty, what they will do to fulfill their responsibilities to the EU and to the irish people?

and two extra ones but are really minor

4. I dont understand the need to change it so that only 2/3rds of the member states are represented on the commission at a time? why the change?

5. The fact that the policy to allow the EU to change treaties without referendum (to an extent, yes I know they cant add anything and we can still veto) feels like a sneaky way of getting the constitution in. While I originally supported the constitution, I rather the EU was upfront on it (and explained it better, too many people didnt understand) then sneaking it in.



Reasons I would vote Yes (i am still undecided)

1. I like some of the changes to the structure, longer presidency ensures more consistent policy making, changes to the qualified majority voting, and the new elements coming in.

2. I trust the EU more then the Irish government on certain policies and am happy they are taking a hand in them (enviroment etc)

3. the fundumental right, solidarity and mutual assistance policies are good, sure chances are none of them will affect ireland and more likely we will be going off to help the new member states then anything else but thats a part of the EU I support.

and again 2 minor ones

4. I've always found the EU to be a somewhat sensible if not a bit anal (*cough* bananas) body and its a legal system I for the moment trust.

5. (really really really minor but it does play on my mind sometimes) I have strong distaste for the sort of people who vote *no* for the wrong reasons (the usual racist, xenophobic rubbish) and with such a difinitive yes or no option (i dislike difinitive choices, hence my love for proportional representation) I am put in the same catagory as some of the most unlikeable of people.

oscarBravo

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

1 (and most important). There are too many points in this treaty (I just finished reading the website and the forum on europe summery) where how policies will work and new systems implemented are *left for a future date* I support most of these policies, like this one:



but without a system in place yet it can be easily buried by red tape after its passed which will make it worthless.

The treaty, like all the EU treaties, is intended to provide a constitutional framework (forgive the use of the C word) around which legislation can be built. There needs to be a line drawn between framework and implementation.

4. I dont understand the need to change it so that only 2/3rds of the member states are represented on the commission at a time? why the change?

There are already more commissioners than there are portfolios. Think of the commission as the EU's "cabinet" - it doesn't make sense to create extra jobs just for the sake of keeping new commissioners busy. This becomes even more of an issue with the prospect of future enlargement.

Besides, we already agreed to it in Nice. Lisbon just postpones it.

BlitzKrieg

oscarBravo wrote: »

The treaty, like all the EU treaties, is intended to provide a constitutional framework (forgive the use of the C word) around which legislation can be built. There needs to be a line drawn between framework and implementation.

...pretend I am an idiot,

Are you saying that the line is the ambiguity of how things are implemented, and that the EU treaties should not put in stone how the EU will work which as a strong supporter of compromise, democracy and diversity I *could* accept, but wouldnt the new power to alter the make up the structure of treaties allow the EU to change things if needed without all this proceedure in future so couldnt they provide a more concrete framework now and if problems arise alter the structure as needed to repair it.

or are you agreeing with me that we need a better definition of how these policies are going to work?

There are already more commissioners than there are portfolios. Think of the commission as the EU's "cabinet" - it doesn't make sense to create extra jobs just for the sake of keeping new commissioners busy. This becomes even more of an issue with the prospect of future enlargement.

Besides, we already agreed to it in Nice. Lisbon just postpones it.

Ok thats fine, its an employment detail, like I said it was one of the minor details with me, I understand (sort of) the EU system of dividing power through the council, commission and parliament, so it wasnt a major issue with me, I just didnt understand why they were doing it too clearly.

oscarBravo

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

...pretend I am an idiot,

Are you saying that the line is the ambiguity of how things are implemented, and that the EU treaties should not put in stone how the EU will work which as a strong supporter of compromise, democracy and diversity I *could* accept, but wouldnt the new power to alter the make up the structure of treaties allow the EU to change things if needed without all this proceedure in future so couldnt they provide a more concrete framework now and if problems arise alter the structure as needed to repair it.

or are you agreeing with me that we need a better definition of how these policies are going to work?

I'm saying that, by and large, implementation details shouldn't be included in treaties. The implementation can be worked out later, and - more importantly - fine-tuned later, with unanimous consent from all the member states. If the exact implementation formed part of the treaty itself, it could only be modified through a treaty amendment, which - while not necessarily requiring a referendum to implement - would require that every member state ratify it.