Which way will you vote (if at all)

molloyjh

ruskin wrote: »

"If you can't convince them, confuse them" - Harry Truman, former U.S. President

I beg all of those people who don't want Lisbon to be passed to please, please come out and vote no. Every single vote matters. Today we have a final chance to speak out for democracy and freedom. Vote NO

With the right to vote comes the responsibility to know what you're voting about. If you don't know and can't/won't find out, then don't vote. I find it very offensive ruskin that you would beg people who can't make up their minds to vote your way, purely on your say so. There's nothing democratic about that. "Say No cos I reckon you should" is hardly an argument for voting no. In fact it's pretty much the same as what the political parties have been doing, i.e. say yes cos we said it would be good for you.

jArgHA

Creepy ... I was the 666th person to vote NO in this

IRLConor

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

IRLConor, thanks again for highlighting the Crotty Judgement in a clear manner, very refreshing to bump into someone like yerself in my meanderings through the Sea of Waffle.

Glad to be of help.

dc69

can someone answer me this?

I am reading the nuetral advice website and have found that

qualified majority voting will be increased across a number of areas.Our QMV is alot lower than countries like france and Britain.

QMV will be introduced across a number of new areas aswell,such as

energy, asylum, immigration, judicial co-operation in criminal matters and sport.


This means then that big countries like france and Britain can make decisions that will affect ireland immigration policy?

These decisions might not be substancial to their countries,full of immigrants but could have substancial affects on our small country??

IRLConor

dc69 wrote: »

Our QMV is alot lower than countries like france and Britain.

Incorrect. My analysis is that Ireland is doing better than the others.

[EDIT]Yes, France and Britain get their way more often than we do, but not by much. Certainly nowhere near as much as if we had a straight weighting by population size.[/EDIT]

Explanation and analysis can be found here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055311438

sink

dc69 wrote: »

can someone answer me this?

I am reading the nuetral advice website and have found that

qualified majority voting will be increased across a number of areas.Our QMV is alot lower than countries like france and Britain.

Proportionally Ireland has 4 time the vote of either of those countries per head of population.

dc69 wrote: »

QMV will be introduced across a number of new areas aswell,such as

energy, asylum, immigration, judicial co-operation in criminal matters and sport.

We can opt out of asylum, immigration and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. How likely are we going to want to veto anything in the areas of energy and sport?

dc69 wrote: »

This means then that big countries like france and Nritain can make decisions that will affect ireland immigration policy?

These decisions might not be substancial to their countries,full of immigrants but could have substancial affects on our small country??

Nope QMV requires at least 15 countries in agreement, France and Britain would need the support of another 13 to do anything.

dc69

IRLConor wrote: »

Incorrect. My analysis is that Ireland is doing better than the others.

[EDIT]Yes, France and Britain get their way more often than we do, but not by much. Certainly nowhere near as much as if we had a straight weighting by population size.[/EDIT]

Explanation and analysis can be found here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055311438

thanks ,in regards to our population we have a good voting power but we do have a small population,so our vote is still worth 7 and the others 29?

Do you know what they can do re immigration and competition policy with this qmv?

if say they want us to lower corporate taxes and we refuse(as far as I know,they cant change them) then can they screw us on the competition policy front?

IRLConor

dc69 wrote: »

thanks ,in regards to our population we have a good voting power but we do have a small population,so our vote is still worth 7 and the others 29?

No, that's the old Nice weighting (and the weight isn't the only thing taken into account). That voting system will continue until 2014 and then will be replaced by the new one (with no weights) in the Lisbon Treaty.

[EDIT]
Under the Nice weighted voting system there were three conditions for getting a yes:

1. 50% (or 2/3s in some circumstances) of the countries had to agree (one vote per country)
2. 74% of the weighted votes must be yes.
3. The yes votes had to represent 62% of the population.

[/EDIT]

dc69

sink wrote: »

We can opt out of asylum, immigration and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. How likely are we going to want to veto anything in the areas of energy and sport?

thanks,can you give me more info on this?

link to the actual document?

sink

dc69 wrote: »

thanks,can you give me more info on this?

link to the actual document?

Sure thing!

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/LisbonTreaty_QMV_new_English.pdf

lisbon_lions

We have the right to opt out of police and judicial affairs. However, if the treaty is passed this will be up for 'review' in 3 years time as I understand it. I would like to know in what form that review would be conducted.

sink

lisbon_lions wrote: »

We have the right to opt out of police and judicial affairs. However, if the treaty is passed this will be up for 'review' in 3 years time as I understand it. I would like to know in what form that review would be conducted.

I'm not sure tbh. But it will be a purely Irish decision with no legal requirement for us to change anything.

dc69

the eu has exclusive competence re competition rulings,can anyone elaborate?

sink

dc69 wrote: »

the eu has exclusive competence re competition rulings,can anyone elaborate?

The EU has had exclusive competence in this area for years. This means that member states can't act individually and can only act together through QMV in the council. This is to facilitate the common market, which would not be anywhere near as successful if each state set their own competition rules. The competition rules deal with anti-trust, monopolies and other corporate related matters. The ECJ is now the most powerful competition court in the world, it's rulings affect all businesses that operate within the common market, including American companies like Microsoft. The ECJ competition laws have been widely seen as a resounding success, increasing competition, stopping unfair business practices and driving down prices for ordinary consumers.

For example, roaming mobile charges were ruled upon as being unfair by the EU and now you have cheaper calls when abroad in Europe.

IRLConor

Here are the exclusive competences:

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union wrote:

Article 3

1. The Union shall have exclusive competence in the following areas:
   1. customs union;
   2. the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market;
   3. monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro;
   4. the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy;
   5. common commercial policy.

So yes, they have exclusive competence over competition rules but only when it's necessary for the functioning of the internal market.

molloyjh

dc69 wrote: »

thanks ,in regards to our population we have a good voting power but we do have a small population,so our vote is still worth 7 and the others 29?

Thats the old system. The new system is a double lock system with the following requirements:
1. 55% of the member states vote Yes, at the moment thats 15 out of the 27, but this will automatically increase if new members are admitted (obviously).
2. Those member states must account for 65% of the population.
3. For anything to be blocked there must be at least 4 states opposed.

Iago

I have a real dilemma with this. I'm more than likely voting no, but then I'm in the same camp as a lot of people I would normally consider to be poles apart from my way of thinking.

The key people of course being the Socialist Party & Sinn Fein, but also b list celebrity types such as Keving Myers, Sinead O'Connor and Gay Byrne for example.

Of course my wife is voting yes so we're only cancelling each other out really, so it doesn't really matter in the long run.

molloyjh

Iago wrote: »

I have a real dilemma with this. I'm more than likely voting no, but then I'm in the same camp as a lot of people I would normally consider to be poles apart from my way of thinking.

The key people of course being the Socialist Party & Sinn Fein, but also b list celebrity types such as Keving Myers, Sinead O'Connor and Gay Byrne for example.

Of course my wife is voting yes so we're only cancelling each other out really, so it doesn't really matter in the long run.

I would imagine both camps would rather both votes.....may I ask why you intend to vote no?

O'Morris

VoidStarNull wrote: »

The point of the EU has always been to pool some soverignty in order to achieve things together that we can't individually.

So then we should expect the EU to concern itself only with those things that can be achieved collectively and not things that individual nation states can achieve just as well by themselves? Would it be correct to say that each one of those 30 vetos we're giving up in this treaty would fall under things that we can't achieve individually?

That principle has worked brilliantly for Ireland.

I don't think so. I think the principle of being part of a common market with the rest of EU has worked brilliantly for Ireland. And nobody would deny that we've benefitted from EU handouts. I can't see how we've benefitted, or will continue to benefit, by having our hands tied when it comes to making important decisions on issues that will have an important influence on the future of our country.

And even if you think the principle has worked brilliantly in the past, there's no reason why it can't continue to work well in the future. Voting no to the treaty won't affect that as the EU could just continue to function as normal withou the changes proposed in the Lisbon treaty. The EU has been working well since enlargement so why is it necessary to change that?

sink

O'Morris wrote: »

So then we should expect the EU to concern itself only with those things that can be achieved collectively and not things that individual nation states can achieve just as well by themselves? Would it be correct to say that each one of those 30 vetos we're giving up in this treaty would fall under things that we can't achieve individually?

Energy security climate change, we can achieve these independently? Electing a president of the european council can we achieve this independently? Combating drug smuggling and people trafficking, can we achieve this independently? Come back when you've found a veto we loose on an issue that we can do better on our own.

O'Morris wrote: »

I don't think so. I think the principle of being part of a common market with the rest of EU has worked brilliantly for Ireland. And nobody would deny that we've benefitted from EU handouts. I can't see how we've benefitted, or will continue to benefit, by having our hands tied when it comes to making important decisions on issues that will have an important influence on the future of our country.

We don't have our hands tied we have influence over 26 other nations now and we can push them in a direction which we think will be mutually beneficial. We still vote on all legislation.

O'Morris wrote: »

And even if you think the principle has worked brilliantly in the past, there's no reason why it can't continue to work well in the future. Voting no to the treaty won't affect that as the EU could just continue to function as normal withou the changes proposed in the Lisbon treaty. The EU has been working well since enlargement so why is it necessary to change that?

Not as effectively as possible and not in the new areas we give it competence.

Scofflaw

sink wrote: »

So then we should expect the EU to concern itself only with those things that can be achieved collectively and not things that individual nation states can achieve just as well by themselves? Would it be correct to say that each one of those 30 vetos we're giving up in this treaty would fall under things that we can't achieve individually?

Energy security climate change, we can achieve these independently? Electing a president of the european council can we achieve this independently? Combating drug smuggling and people trafficking, can we achieve this independently? Come back when you've found a veto we loose on an issue that we can do better on our own.

Not only are the new QMV areas ones that are better handled at EU level, they are also the areas that Irish people think ought to be handled at EU level:

Fighting Terrorism: 76% support for being handled at EU level, 17% opposed

Energy: 69% support, 25% opposed

Environment: 65% support, 30% opposed

and oddly enough:

Defence & Foreign Affairs: 61% support, 29% opposed

Source: Eurobarometer Autumn 2007


cordially,
Scofflaw

Is it a simple yes or no in the polling station?

molloyjh

LittleNipper wrote: »

Is it a simple yes or no in the polling station?

Yep.....major anti-climax!

sink

LittleNipper wrote: »

Is it a simple yes or no in the polling station?

Two boxes, one with Yes beside it and the other with No beside it. You put an X in the box of your choice.

thank you. was told it was going to be confusing:cool:

Irish and Proud

No matter what the Yes camp say, they have yet to explain the following - something which I've never seen challenged:


"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly" ... "All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."

- V.Giscard D'Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007


"The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable... The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success."

- Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister, Flandreinfo, 23 June 2007


Now please, just please don't tell me it's Liberatas scare mongering. I've heard and seen these type of comments (particularly the first quote) from several sources so far. The Yes camp will tell us what they want us to hear and they'll even tell us that the No camp is anti EU when that is largely not the case. Now, will the Yes camp tell us the whole story and stop quoting what is essentially a proxy of the EU Lisbon document. In short, the real document is virtually unreadable, and the question is WHY???

Also, to the Yes camp, stop deceiving to people of Ireland - you are a total disgrace to this country, to the people who died for our republic, to the European people, and most importantly, to the principles of democracy.

You are SICK!!! :mad:

Please vote no to Lisbon!

seamus

Why are you talking about two quotes which were made well before the Lisbon Treaty was even published, and no doubt are out of context and translated?

How do propose that anything is "hidden" in a public document. Surely if these "hidden" things were there, then Libertas and others would have shown them to us?

The real document is perfectly readable if you sit down. It's dry and boring, definitely. But not unreadable.

sink

Irish and Proud wrote: »

No matter what the Yes camp say, they have yet to explain the following - something which I've never seen challenged:


"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly" ... "All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."

- V.Giscard D'Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007


"The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable... The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success."

- Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister, Flandreinfo, 23 June 2007


Now please, just please don't tell me it's Liberatas scare mongering. I've heard and seen these type of comments (particularly the first quote) from several sources so far. The Yes camp will tell us what they want us to hear and they'll even tell us that the No camp is anti EU when that is largely not the case. Now, will the Yes camp tell us the whole story and stop quoting what is essentially a proxy of the EU Lisbon document. In short, the real document is virtually unreadable, and the question is WHY???

Also, to the Yes camp, stop deceiving to people of Ireland - you are a total disgrace to this country, to the people who died for our republic, to the European people, and most importantly, to the principles of democracy.

You are SICK!!! :mad:

Please vote no to Lisbon!

Please read this post.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56225113&postcount=19

You are the reason direct democracy does not work!

sink

This guy has posted this exact piece several times before under different names and has been banned for it several times already. Can you not block i.p's?

claudiog

The matter is freedom. A complex document is the main way to control the liberty.
Give a sight here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055312780

Claudio G. H.