Reasons to Vote Yes - What are they?

kluivert

I cannot find on the net "10 reasons to Vote Yes in plain English"

Could someone point me in the right direction.

I am currently in the pile where if I dont know, am voting no.

Thanks

oscarBravo

Search this forum for posts by sink.

Beruthiel

kluivert wrote: »

I am currently in the pile where if I dont know, am voting no.

Please don't do that. Don't vote at all if you are going to vote no because of the above reason.

Why not read some of the threads in this forum? Some of them explain a lot.

robindch

kluivert wrote: »

I am currently in the pile where if I dont know, am voting no.

Why? If you don't understand what the issues are, then don't vote.

Know, not "no".

IRLConor

sink's reasons are here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56206650&postcount=303

Zube

kluivert wrote: »

I cannot find on the net "10 reasons to Vote Yes in plain English"

1. Mary Lou MacDonald
2. "Businessman" Declan Ganley
3. Cóir
4. The Peace and Neutrality Alliance
5. Dana
6. 32 County Sovereignty Movement
7. The Workers Party
8. Anthony Coughlan
9. Eamonn Dunphy
10. The Communist Party of Ireland

IRLConor

Zube wrote: »

1. Mary Lou MacDonald
2. "Businessman" Declan Ganley
3. Cóir
4. The Peace and Neutrality Alliance
5. Dana
6. 32 County Sovereignty Movement
7. The Workers Party
8. Anthony Coughlan
9. Eamonn Dunphy
10. The Communist Party of Ireland

TBH, they're pretty lame excuses for voting yes.

There is genuine, inherent value in the treaty itself. The fact that a lot of crazies are against it is a side issue.

Zube

IRLConor wrote: »

The fact that a lot of crazies are against it is a side issue.

That's the whole no campaign!

IRLConor

Zube wrote: »

That's the whole no campaign!

It's the whole no campaign. It's not the whole no movement. There are sane reasons for voting no (even if I disagree with them), they're just not sexy enough for the no campaign to use.

In the same way, the arguments put forward by a large portion of the yes campaign have been woefully inadequate. Doesn't stop me from voting yes.

MajorMax

Personally, I prefer to be on the inside p!ssing out

Scofflaw

Mine at this stage:

1. Increased democracy through the extension of the right of the EU Parliament to vote on nearly all EU legislation

2. Increased democracy through the ability of national parliaments (rather than governments) to object to proposed EU legislation

3. Increased democracy through the Citizens' Initiative petition mechanism - I know we in Ireland don't have formal petition mechanisms, but they're common elsewhere in Europe. They're not toothless - a million people signed the petition that got this included in the Treaty.

4. Combating climate change an EU objective, so that all EU law must take account of it and act to promote it.

5. Energy policy increasingly an EU competence - the much larger clout of the EU, and the internal equality of members means that this is very good for Ireland's energy security - and the EU commitment to renewable energy may even lead to us becoming a net energy supplier. 69% of people in Ireland want this to be an EU competence.

6. Environment policy increasingly an EU competence - again, something that is better handled at the EU level - and again, something the majority (61%) of people in Ireland think ought to be handled at EU level.

7. Single voice available to Europe in foreign policy - the High Representative won't set foreign policy, but he/she will be available to speak on behalf of Europe when Europe agrees

8. Charter of Rights will be legally binding on the EU - making it possible for the citizen to challenge EU law in the Irish courts if they feel the EU has failed to respect the rights. Also, the EU to sign up to the ECHR.

9. Institutional changes are well-balanced, and a very good deal for Ireland:

• all states retain equality at the Commisison
• the new QMV rules have actually redistributed voting power very equitably (see here - the real changes are a couple of percent either way, not Libertas' fictional halves and doubles), and also appear to compensate for the loss of vetoes
• There is no guarantee we will get such a good deal again

10. Increases in transparency:

• the Council to vote in public, so we can see whether Ireland has supported things it claims to have opposed
• EU Parliamentary scrutiny of 100% of EU budget, up from 20% now
• national parliamentary scrutiny of proposed EU legislation - both government and opposition, Dáil and Seanad

cordially,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

Scofflaw wrote: »

Mine at this stage:


7. Single voice available to Europe in foreign policy - the High Representative won't set foreign policy, but he/she will be available to speak on behalf of Europe when Europe agrees

cordially,
Scofflaw

You seem to be more informed than most yes supporters. Anyone know if this is a unanimous agreement or a majority ect.?

As a unanimous decision its really just for a show as all of europe would already be saying these things in their own voices over foreign policy. If it's not then I don't like this one. I'm already against a lot of foreign policies (some of which may label me racist by lazy supporters but it's my own opinion)

kluivert

Thanks Scofflow.

Some very good points there thank you.

First point I wish to state that I am under the believe that if I vote No to something I dont understand fully, and that No vote is succesful, then the present doesnt change.

I agree to a certain extent that if you dont know what your voting for you shouldnt vote. But I was listening to a gentleman on the radio yesterday evening stating that he was voting yes just to go with the flow attitidue.

Second point I wish to bring up, I would vote yes but I fear that this treaty will lead to a European State and I dont want to lose my Nationality, a feature of the NO VOTE. I want to be Irish not European.

sink

ShooterSF wrote: »

You seem to be more informed than most yes supporters. Anyone know if this is a unanimous agreement or a majority ect.?

As a unanimous decision its really just for a show as all of europe would already be saying these things in their own voices over foreign policy. If it's not then I don't like this one. I'm already against a lot of foreign policies (some of which may label me racist by lazy supporters but it's my own opinion)

Foreign policy is a unanimous decision. Military and defence are also unanimous areas, in fact they're locked down tight as they can never become subject to QMV.

Referendum Commission wrote:

The power to change from unanimity to Qualified Majority Voting or from the Special Legislative Procedure to a Ordinary Legislative Procedure does not extend to military and defence issues.

Tigger

Scofflaw wrote: »

Mine at this stage:

1. Increased democracy through the extension of the right of the EU Parliament to vote on nearly all EU legislation

democracy per populas rather than per country is not nessiciarly in our interests. democracy is not inherently good. i worked in a factory (many years ago) where we were allowed to go out for smoke breaks 5 mins per hour thats 40 mins per day . we were affered an extra weeks holidays if we gave this up. 55% didn't smoke 45% did so it went through. but those who voteed it through didn't loose anything. in the same way if the bigger states want to change something "irish" they will not see the need to us as its of no interest to tham
the non-proportional vote system and the veto protects our culture.

2. Increased democracy through the ability of national parliaments (rather than governments) to object to proposed EU legislation

i prefer the govt that we elected do things i see no advantage to ireland here.

3. Increased democracy through the Citizens' Initiative petition mechanism - I know we in Ireland don't have formal petition mechanisms, but they're common elsewhere in Europe. They're not toothless - a million people signed the petition that got this included in the Treaty.

i've said this before ; things like this should be allowed on their own merit not tacked on like americian constitutional ammendments

4. Combating climate change an EU objective, so that all EU law must take account of it and act to promote it.

not really the same issue though just another sweetner, this treatyy shoukld be about the structure of europe

5. Energy policy increasingly an EU competence - the much larger clout of the EU, and the internal equality of members means that this is very good for Ireland's energy security - and the EU commitment to renewable energy may even lead to us becoming a net energy supplier. 69% of people in Ireland want this to be an EU competence.

as before we can band together without being ruled by europe p

6. Environment policy increasingly an EU competence - again, something that is better handled at the EU level - and again, something the majority (61%) of people in Ireland think ought to be handled at EU level.

as before we can band together without being ruled by europe p

7. Single voice available to Europe in foreign policy - the High Representative won't set foreign policy, but he/she will be available to speak on behalf of Europe when Europe agrees

as before we can band together without being ruled by europe p

8. Charter of Rights will be legally binding on the EU - making it possible for the citizen to challenge EU law in the Irish courts if they feel the EU has failed to respect the rights. Also, the EU to sign up to the ECHR.

not really the same issue though just another sweetner, this treatyy shoukld be about the structure of europe

9. Institutional changes are well-balanced, and a very good deal for Ireland:

broad strokes this is simply the refused EU constiytution with some sweetners tacked on

• all states retain equality at the Commisison
• the new QMV rules have actually redistributed voting power very equitably (see here - the real changes are a couple of percent either way, not Libertas' fictional halves and doubles), and also appear to compensate for the loss of vetoes
• There is no guarantee we will get such a good deal again

if we don't then we vote no again

10. Increases in transparency:

lol what so at the moment transparity is lacking well i'll agree there

• the Council to vote in public, so we can see whether Ireland has supported things it claims to have opposed
  

lol what so at the moment transparity is lacking well i'll agree there

[*]EU Parliamentary scrutiny of 100% of EU budget, up from 20% now
[*]national parliamentary scrutiny of proposed EU legislation - both government and opposition, Dáil and Seanad




cordially,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

sink wrote: »

Foreign policy is a unanimous decision. Military and defence are also unanimous areas, in fact they're locked down tight as they can never become subject to QMV.

It seems a bit pointless as a reason to vote yes then does it not? It only comes into effect when everyone agrees anyway. So there already is a unified statement coming from all these countries anyway. I'm not saying its a reason to vote No it like most things circling the lisbon treaty is actually an irrelevance.

sink

Tigger wrote: »

democracy per populas rather than per country is not nessiciarly in our interests. democracy is not inherently good. i worked in a factory (many years ago) where we were allowed to go out for smoke breaks 5 mins per hour thats 40 mins per day . we were affered an extra weeks holidays if we gave this up. 55% didn't smoke 45% did so it went through. but those who voteed it through didn't loose anything. in the same way if the bigger states want to change something "irish" they will not see the need to us as its of no interest to tham
the non-proportional vote system and the veto protects our culture. i prefer the govt that we elected do things i see no advantage to ireland here.


i've said this before ; things like this should be allowed on their own merit not tacked on like americian constitutional ammendments
not really the same issue though just another sweetner, this treatyy shoukld be about the structure of europe as before we can band together without being ruled by europe p as before we can band together without being ruled by europe p as before we can band together without being ruled by europe p not really the same issue though just another sweetner, this treatyy shoukld be about the structure of europe broad strokes this is simply the refused EU constiytution with some sweetners tacked on if we don't then we vote no again lol what so at the moment transparity is lacking well i'll agree there lol what so at the moment transparity is lacking well i'll agree there

While I can see your point of view I think you are failing to see the bigger picture. I don't think our culture is being eroded by the EU, and through the principle of subsidiary, policies which affect us more should be implemented at national level, this is why parliaments are allowed to vet EU legislation, to see if it's in-line with subsidiary.

I wrote why I believe powerful supranational organisation are good for small countries like Ireland here.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56203719&postcount=133

Scofflaw

kluivert wrote: »

Thanks Scofflow.

Some very good points there thank you.

First point I wish to state that I am under the believe that if I vote No to something I dont understand fully, and that No vote is succesful, then the present doesnt change.

Hmm. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Some of the institutional changes will happen anyway, such as the Commission reduction, and the new deal may not be as good. Further, the EU will undoubtedly continue to change, as will the attitudes of our EU partners. Turning down Lisbon will not preserve the status quo.

kluivert wrote: »

I agree to a certain extent that if you dont know what your voting for you shouldnt vote. But I was listening to a gentleman on the radio yesterday evening stating that he was voting yes just to go with the flow attitidue.

There'll always be people doing that, on both sides. Such is our democracy...

kluivert wrote: »

Second point I wish to bring up, I would vote yes but I fear that this treaty will lead to a European State and I dont want to lose my Nationality, a feature of the NO VOTE. I want to be Irish not European.

You are only a European 'citizen' because you are an Irish citizen. It's very like being able to use ATM's abroad because your Irish bank has signed up to Cirrus - it doesn't mean you're banking with the foreign banks you're using, or no longer with BOI/AIB or whoever. Similarly, there are no duties attached to European citizenship, and as long as you're living in Ireland, it doesn't really have any practical consequences whatsoever.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sink

ShooterSF wrote: »

It seems a bit pointless as a reason to vote yes then does it not? It only comes into effect when everyone agrees anyway. So there already is a unified statement coming from all these countries anyway. I'm not saying its a reason to vote No it like most things circling the lisbon treaty is actually an irrelevance.

You wanted a statement of fact to clear up some issues, that's what I gave you. If you use it as a reason to vote yes or no that is your prerogative.

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

It seems a bit pointless as a reason to vote yes then does it not? It only comes into effect when everyone agrees anyway. So there already is a unified statement coming from all these countries anyway. I'm not saying its a reason to vote No it like most things circling the lisbon treaty is actually an irrelevance.

Not at all. If the EU cannot speak with a single voice even where it is in agreement it is much harder to use the combined weight of Europe - and much easier for countries like the US or China to break up an agreement by putting pressure on each country individually.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

sink wrote: »

You wanted a statement of fact to clear up some issues, that's what I gave you. If you use it as a reason to vote yes or no that is your prerogative.

Sorry man, I never took it to mean you were advocating a yes vote. I had seen it listed earlier as a reason to vote yes... or at least I think I did

djpbarry

Zube wrote: »

1. Mary Lou MacDonald
2. "Businessman" Declan Ganley
3. Cóir
4. The Peace and Neutrality Alliance
5. Dana
6. 32 County Sovereignty Movement
7. The Workers Party
8. Anthony Coughlan
9. Eamonn Dunphy
10. The Communist Party of Ireland

11. Lisbon's really nice.

forestfruits

Does it bother anybody else that neither side seems to be able to outline their case in plain english. Why are we being asked to vote on something that seems to be far too wide - why has it not been broken down into easily understandable steps, should all these things be voted on at once?

Mainly it bothers me that each time I read/watch/hear anything to do with the treaty it comes across differently- and so Ive failed miserably to fully understand what exactly Im being asked to vote about!

Still undecided the day before- NOT GOOD

cornbb

forestfruits wrote: »

Does it bother anybody else that neither side seems to be able to outline their case in plain english. Why are we being asked to vote on something that seems to be far too wide - why has it not been broken down into easily understandable steps, should all these things be voted on at once?

Mainly it bothers me that each time I read/watch/hear anything to do with the treaty it comes across differently- and so Ive failed miserably to fully understand what exactly Im being asked to vote about!

Still undecided the day before- NOT GOOD

Its a complex treaty. It is difficult to decipher and it was never designed to be ratified via a referendum.

In a nutshell, its another overhaul of how the EU works, intended to make it more efficient and more democratic in line with how Europe has changed over the decades (enlargement, etc). It is another in a series of treaties which have been agreed upon by all members since the foundation of the EEC in the 1950s; Paris, Rome, Maastrict, Nice etc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaties_of_the_European_Union

I think most people would agree that in the past the outcomes of these treaties have been a positive thing for Europe (and look at how well Ireland has done out of EU membership). I also would point out that many of the flimsy arguments made by the No side were also made in the past for these other treaties and none of the doomsday predictions have come to pass. I haven't seen an argument to vote against this new treaty that has any merit - I can only see positive things for Ireland/Europe out of this.

ShooterSF

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not at all. If the EU cannot speak with a single voice even where it is in agreement it is much harder to use the combined weight of Europe - and much easier for countries like the US or China to break up an agreement by putting pressure on each country individually.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That problem has little to do with Europe and more to do with electing less-spineless leaders who stand by their decision under pressure from another decision.

IRLConor

forestfruits wrote: »

Does it bother anybody else that neither side seems to be able to outline their case in plain english. Why are we being asked to vote on something that seems to be far too wide - why has it not been broken down into easily understandable steps, should all these things be voted on at once?

I would have preferred that it was broken down into smaller pieces but it's not really practical from a political point of view.

In all the years of negotiating the treaty there would have been a lot of horse trading over what does and doesn't go into the treaty. I think many of the member states would be wary of doing a "small step" unless that particular step was beneficial to them, so breaking the lisbon treaty up would be quite a difficult job and I don't think you'd get much of an increase in clarity.

forestfruits wrote: »

Mainly it bothers me that each time I read/watch/hear anything to do with the treaty it comes across differently-

A lot of what is put across in the mass media on both sides about the treaty is horrendous spin or outright lies. It's pretty easy to see why it would come across differently each time.

forestfruits wrote: »

and so Ive failed miserably to fully understand what exactly Im being asked to vote about!

Still undecided the day before- NOT GOOD

Have a dig around this forum, there's LOADS of easily digestible information on stuff contained in the treaty. You still have time to make up your mind. Concentrate on the stuff that includes direct citation to the treaty, there's less spin in those posts.

If you have specific questions that aren't answered here ask them. If you don't want to ask them directly, feel free to PM me. While I am pro-Lisbon I hold that view after reading the treaty and I won't give you any help that I can't back up without reference to the treaty itself. (This offer extends to anyone BTW.)

IRLConor

cornbb wrote: »

I haven't seen an argument to vote against this new treaty that has any merit

In the interest of fairness and balance, I have to say that I do see some arguments for voting no. I don't agree with them, but they are valid, rational reasons.

cornbb

IRLConor wrote: »

In the interest of fairness and balance, I have to say that I do see some arguments for voting no. I don't agree with them, but they are valid, rational reasons.

Ok, I'll concede that the treaty isn't 100% good (and I can't even think of one of the negatives off the top of my head...) But I think a lot of people are falling into the trap of focusing on a negative thing (whether it is real, percieved or just a blatant lie) and failing to look at the overall picture - the "reasons to vote yes" listed above are still only a small part of the whole Lisbon picture. EU treaties are good for Europe, historically this has been the case over and over again, and there's no reason why the Lisbon treaty won't be the same.

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

That problem has little to do with Europe and more to do with electing less-spineless leaders who stand by their decision under pressure from another decision.

The problem with that view is that you decry the same people for standing up to "popular pressure" - which would seem to argue they don't lack courage, since they're standing up to the people who elect them.

Yet at the same time you believe they immediately buckle when faced by negotiations from other countries who have no power over their job security.

There is a contradiction there, and the most likely explanation is that you define "spineless" as "not doing what I want".


cordially,
cofflaw

forestfruits

Actually I do have one question - not sure exactly how to phrase this but , that the treaty allows for itself to be changed without going to referendum again? Now this seem crazy, true?

Scofflaw

forestfruits wrote: »

Actually I do have one question - not sure exactly how to phrase this but , that the treaty allows for itself to be changed without going to referendum again? Now this seem crazy, true?

That would be crazy. It doesn't allow that, though. What it says is that the Treaty can amended by single amendments, the same way we amend our Constitution, as opposed to having a whole new Treaty every time.

The Article in question is Article 48 (TEU), and it contains this rather important proviso:

The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

Our "respective constitutional requirement" is a referendum. There may be amendments that wouldn't require a referendum, but they'd have to be pretty insignificant amendments (and would still have to be ratified by the Dáil).

The claim that the Article allows the Treaty to be amended without any reference to us is a big fat hairy lie, I'm afraid.

cordially,
Scofflaw