Yes to Lisbon = Goodbye Constitutional Republic

turgon

democrates wrote: »

national politicians have gone too far with EU political union at the representative level

That is a great statement, and really sums it up in clean manner. Id been trying to explain this topic, but that just does it all.

A lot of the European project is being done at representative level. Its about time they reached down and asked the advice of the citizens. Maybe a national questionnaire, with questions relating to what aspects of the EU we want to see furthered, and what aspects halted (or even withdrawn). No more of this Brian Cowen method - "Its good, not telling you why, but vote no and Irelands place in Europe is gone. And while im talking about the treaty, tell the NO side to stop scaremongering."

johnnyq

Deleted User wrote: »

Caller you are being very Vague.
What specefically is worrying you about Lisbon other than things military?
.

Firstly I don't agree that military issue is a red herring I have explained my views at length in the Why to vote no thread.
Look at Post 2 of your own thread for a start on the rest!!

Also this post post from democrates highlights my concerns about how the EU is becoming detached from its citizens and more focused on its buricratic aims instead.

Even today, Barrosso was threatening 'consequences' for Ireland if we vote no. A true representative body would not be doing this.

sink

I thought when politicians went out canvasing for your vote you had ample opportunity to tell them. You can still write them a letter or go to their constituency office and tell them what you think without them having to ask you first. Take the initiative. Voting no won't make the changes you are looking for.

johnnyq

Ok I will go to Barrosso when he is canvessing to tell him about my concerns.

OH YEAH!!!

I FORGOT!!!

He's NOT elected so he's not even accountable to me.

sink

johnnyq wrote: »

Even today, Barrosso was threatening 'consequences' for Ireland if we vote no. A true representative body would not be doing this.

He was not 'threatening' consequences, he and the EU itself will not do anything. The consequences he speaks of are for the EU itself and all it's member states including Ireland. It will be stuck in a quagmire with no direction out. No one has any ideas what to do after a no vote, including the no vote campaigners.

johnnyq

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lisbon-treaty/vote-yes-or-well-all-pay--price-eu-chief-warns-1388158.html

IRELAND and Europe will "pay a price" if there is a 'No' vote in the Lisbon Treaty referendum, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso warned voters last night.

Putting the gun to Irish heads ahead of the referendum in just over a fortnight, Mr Barroso said rejection of the EU Reform Treaty would be bad for the whole of Europe, including Ireland.

Wow you're right that doesn't sound threatening at all:rolleyes:

turgon

sink wrote: »

I thought when politicians went out canvasing for your vote you had ample opportunity to tell them. You can still write them a letter or go to their constituency office and tell them what you think without them having to ask you first. Take the initiative. Voting no won't make the changes you are looking for.

You think my local councilors going to go "Alright then, Ill just get the plane there, go over to Brussels, hijack the EU, mention your concerns, hopefully have the treaty changed and edit the proposed constitutional amendment".

If this is not the scenario you had in mind, please explain how us talking to local politicians is going to have ANY effect on the Lisbon Treaty, or the EU in general.

sink

johnnyq wrote: »

Ok I will go to Barrosso when he is canvessing to tell him about my concerns.

OH YEAH!!!

I FORGOT!!!

He's NOT elected so he's not even accountable to me.

And he also has no power to change anything, his role is to chair the commission, organise and co-ordinate the EU institutions and suggest changes to the council. The council has the most power to make changes, and guess who sits on the council, the elected members of the cabinet. How to you influence the cabinet, by communicating with them and threatening them you'll vote for opposition.

sink

johnnyq wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lisbon-treaty/vote-yes-or-well-all-pay--price-eu-chief-warns-1388158.html



Wow you're right that doesn't sound threatening at all:rolleyes:

He is simply stating a fact. He is not threatening to take any action against us. It's like he's warning us not to play in the middle of the road. If we decide to ignore his advice and we get hit, it won't be his doing or anyone else at the EU it will be our own fault.

johnnyq

sink wrote: »

And he also has no power to change anything, his role is to chair the commission, organise and co-ordinate the EU institutions and suggest changes to the council. The council has the most power to make changes, and guess who sits on the council, the elected members of the cabinet. How to you influence the cabinet, by communicating with them and threatening them you'll vote for opposition.

Wow Barrosso can come out with some pretty forceful stuff for someone with no power :rolleyes:

Excellent, the treaty provides the perfect sit on the fence get out clause of course for our government. They will be able to change their vote to majority voting and then vote taking my views into account when it will make feck all difference.

turgon

Let me clear this up sink, you are saying that there is someway we can change the Lisbon Treaty, by talking to our TD's???????? I really want to hear this. If I talk to the minister of education living down the road, I might even be appointed Emperor of Europe.

johnnyq

sink wrote: »

He is simply stating a fact. He is not threatening to take any action against us. It's like he's warning us not to play in the middle of the road. If we decide to ignore his advice and we get hit, it won't be his doing or anyone else at the EU it will be our own fault.

Riiiiiggghhhtttt, so he is a carrier pigeon with a message saving us from ourselves.

Totally harmless....

turgon

sink wrote: »

He is simply stating a fact.

Is that so?? There is no way the EU can actually find out why there was a NO vote and suggest something new?? What happened in Nice?? A NO vote, followed by a change, sparking a YES vote.

sink

johnnyq wrote: »

Wow Barrosso can come out with some pretty forceful stuff for someone with no power :rolleyes:

Excellent, the treaty provides the perfect sit on the fence get out clause of course for our government. They will be able to change their vote to majority voting and then vote taking my views into account when it will make feck all difference.

And what do you expect a no vote to achieve, bearing in mind that changing to QMV requires unanimity and voting defence and taxation to unanimity would be political suicide for half the governments in the EU.

sink

turgon wrote: »

Is that so?? There is no way the EU can actually find out why there was a NO vote and suggest something new?? What happened in Nice?? A NO vote, followed by a change, sparking a YES vote.

You can't guarantee that. The EU might become paralysed in indecision.

turgon

A NO vote will make the EU reconsider

How do think a YES vote will make the changes we want come about? You still haven't answered my question above, concerning how talking to TD's make a change. Ridiculous concept.

turgon

sink wrote: »

You can't guarantee that. The EU might become paralysed in indecision.

So basically we are being asked by a group of people to accept their proposals, or nothing else will happen. Thats definitely democracy.

sink

turgon wrote: »

Let me clear this up sink, you are saying that there is someway we can change the Lisbon Treaty, by talking to our TD's???????? I really want to hear this. If I talk to the minister of education living down the road, I might even be appointed Emperor of Europe.

How do you think anything happens in any government? You might not get what you want all the time but that's the way things work and voting no is not going to change that.

democrates

Scofflaw wrote: »

I appreciate I'm on a hiding to nothing here, of course, since it's technical fact fighting easy fiction. Still, I also find I can't resist challenging the "PC gone mad" myths every year.

In fairness achieving the absence of 100% legality and regularity would be impractical, it's likely there will be some fraud across 27 member states, and asking the auditors to establish the full facts would be silly.

The corollary to that lack of full facts is that to dismiss fraud as easy fiction is itself, easy fiction.

turgon

sink wrote: »

How do you think anything happens in any government? You might not get what you want all the time but that's the way things work and voting no is not going to change that.

Its a bit late for that there, seems as the treaty was signed on like 6 months ago. Why didnt the government ask us to contribute ideas. As if talking to some TD is eventually going to influence the EU. Democracy isnt that good sink.

sink

turgon wrote: »

Its a bit late for that there, seems as the treaty was signed on like 6 months ago. Why didnt the government ask us to contribute ideas. As if talking to some TD is eventually going to influence the EU. Democracy isnt that good sink.

Because they probably felt that they could satisfy enough voters with what's on offer in this treaty. They don't need to satisfy everyone that would be impossible, they only need a majority.

turgon

sink wrote: »

Because they probably felt that they could satisfy enough voters with what's on offer in this treaty. They don't need to satisfy everyone that would be impossible, they only need a majority.

You've hit the nail on the head there. Euthanasia for people over 60, sure there only a minority.

Seriously though...if they did set up a real system where people voiced their suggestions and were involved, only the interested people would take part, and most of these would be smart enough to realize that the key international word is compromise. However running from the issues is not the way to go and could probably be described a irresponsible of those we have elected.

democrates

sink wrote: »

You mention the key factor but fail to recognise it's significance. Their national parliaments are ratifying it, not the EU. The EU has no legal basis to even ask them to hold referendums. Voting yes or no is not going to change this. I know this is not going to make you change your opinion, i'm stating this for other peoples benefit.

But I'm making that key point, the EU includes representatives from the nation states and it suits them to ignore their own people.

The citizenry of each member state face the task of regaining their right to have a say in these important agreements, we are the only ones left with a vote on the table, a yes to Lisbon makes this way of doing business a worker, a No will force a rethink on citizen exclusion.

sink

democrates wrote: »

But I'm making that key point, the EU includes representatives from the nation states and it suits them to ignore their own people.

The citizenry of each member state face the task of regaining their right to have a say in these important agreements, we are the only ones left with a vote on the table, a yes to Lisbon makes this way of doing business a worker, a No will force a rethink on citizen exclusion.

It is more likely to have the opposite effect imo, because off the amount of people that seem to be voting for reasons that have nothing to do with the treaty. You could be right, but so could I, it's a judgement call each of us has to make.

turgon

sink wrote: »

It is more likely to have the opposite effect imo, because off the amount of people that seem to be voting for reasons that have nothing to do with the treaty.

Are you saying that if we vote YES, the next time we have to ratify a treaty the other nations will have refernda?

democrates

sink wrote: »

He was not 'threatening' consequences, he and the EU itself will not do anything. The consequences he speaks of are for the EU itself and all it's member states including Ireland. It will be stuck in a quagmire with no direction out. No one has any ideas what to do after a no vote, including the no vote campaigners.

That no way out argument is up there with intelligent Design - "I can't figure it out so it proves God created it".

Read through my posts on this thread for what we need to aim for.

sink

turgon wrote: »

Are you saying that if we vote YES, the next time we have to ratify a treaty the other nations will have refernda?

I wouldn't say more likely, the only thing that will do that imo is kicking the current governments out of office. But I do believe voting no will discourage any government from holding referenda in the future. As I said before it's a judgement call, I don't really know but my judgement thinks so.

democrates

sink wrote: »

It is more likely to have the opposite effect imo, because off the amount of people that seem to be voting for reasons that have nothing to do with the treaty. You could be right, but so could I, it's a judgement call each of us has to make.

There's no doubt a no would only further convince some elitists in their conviction that citizens should be excluded from any decisions, but I think a red light is a better answer than a green light, I don't think we should cave on this.

turgon

democrates wrote: »

There's no doubt a no would only further convince some elitists in their conviction that citizens should be excluded from any decisions, but I think a red light is a better answer than a green light, I don't think we should cave on this.

Yes. True.

sink wrote: »

I wouldn't say more likely, the only thing that will do that imo is kicking the current governments out of office. But I do believe voting no will discourage any government from holding referenda in the future. As I said before it's a judgement call, I don't really know but my judgement thinks so.

In Ireland they are constitutionally obliged to hold a referendum. But still, we shouldnt have to fight for a right to vote. It should be givin to us

turgon

democrates wrote: »

There's no doubt a no would only further convince some elitists in their conviction that citizens should be excluded from any decisions, but I think a red light is a better answer than a green light, I don't think we should cave on this.

Elitists are so hypocritical, they probably swear by democracy, then don't realize when they cant get something done, that is there to prevent them from overstepping the line.