Ok, now please leave EU

Lemming

sopranos wrote: »

Finally I forced you to read the Treaty,

I see rampant egotism is alive and kicking elsewhere in Europe. If you think you "forced" anyone to read the Lisbon treaty you are sadly, sadly deluded.

Rb

You should pay more attention to the quote in your sig, Lemming

Lemming

Rb wrote: »

You should pay more attention to the quote in your sig, Lemming

Probably. But I'm bored and I haven't poked any muppets (racist, xenophobic trolling ones or otherwise) with a proverbial pointy stick for a while.

sopranos

Cow Moolester wrote: »

Sopranos I respect your view but it is flawed. This was not an anti-EU vote.

Of course Ireland would have its core values in mind when deciding which way to vote. This is a predominantly Catholic country where many do not want to see abortion brought in to law. Thats one reason for voting no.

Italy, Spain, Greece and many other countries are catholic too, it doesn't mean anything with the Treaty or abortion. Do you think that with the Treaty Europe may force Irish to approve abortion? Do you think that the Pope wouldn't have already spoken against the Treaty if this was the case?

Cow Moolester wrote: »

A second reason for voting no was because of the militarisation of Europe. We are a neutral country and would prefer to stay that way.

There's no militarization. There's a common understanding of "security" since we all are in the same ship. You want to be neutral? good, then stay outside EU, like Swiss. Otherwise you've to agree on a common security and defense regulations. It's the same argument I always argue with Austrians (where I leave, I'm an Italian in Austria), which have similar "neutrality" concerns.

Cow Moolester wrote: »

Thirdly, the way the EU and our government handled the campaign wasn't done well. The people weren't informed well and that is as much the EU commission's fault as our government. If they wanted this treaty to be passed then they would have made sure everyone was informed.

That's the big fault about the whole thing. A decision regarding half billion citizens handled and presented that way.

Cow Moolester wrote: »

And finally, the way this has all been handled is fundamentally undemocratic. Every country would be giving a lot of power to unelected officials in Brussels.

The main idea of European Union is that it does not have to be a mere fact of money or business, otherwise it would have a been a whole failure. EU MUST grow in a political subject with more power than actual, only in this way everyone will be able to receive the benefits EU is bringing. This is not an easy step, however and it's a shame to loose other time thanks to a referendum where people where not even informed about.

sopranos

iPoker wrote: »

So a rail connection implies the UK (who are far less European than Irish) has borders with France? How bizarre in 2008! Maybe in the 1800's!

The tunnel was a psychological and physical improvement towards the whole idea of "big Europe" which released the British from the century-long idea of "splendid isolation".

sopranos

iPoker wrote: »

This being, in essence, the same contract rejected by Holland and France...of course, they do not now have the RIGHT to decide! Maybe Ireland should leave Europe if it is the only way to safeguard our democracy

I had the same identical criticism about France and Netherlands two years ago too. They voted No for internal political reasons (French were against Chirac, at the time), and used EU referendum as a way of protesting. That's why referendum are not the right tool for voting a Treaty. Today, the French and Dutch Parlaments voted the Treaty at almost unanimity (Dutch need a ratify from the first Kamer, but the second already voted Yes), EXACTLY as they usually vote other important laws in their countries.

Gordon

sopranos wrote: »

Italy, Spain, Greece and many other countries are catholic too

Greece isn't Catholic. It is Greek Orthodox predominantly. Unless you call less than 5% of the population as being the country's religion of course.

turgon

sopranos wrote: »

Finally I forced you to read the Treaty, you should have done it before voting no, though.

Wait a second, do you stalk me sopranos? How would you know whether or not I read it before? Because for you information I did read the some of the treaty before voting, and it was because of this I voted no.

sopranos wrote: »

There's no militarization.

Did you even read my post sopranos?? It very simply states that the Lisbon Treaty did contain militarization. How can you deny this. An official document outlines goals for the military and you are saying it doesn't???? Your position if becoming ever more untenable. Not like it was tenable in the first place.

sopranos wrote: »

normal usual defense objectives which are for sure written in your and everyone else constitutions.

Oh my god :eek: I actually cannot believe this. You are saying putting military into an international (originally economic) organization's treaty is that same as it being in a nations constitution?

sopranos

The Mighty Ken wrote: »

OP - You're quite obviously arguing against democracy. How do you reconcile that?

That's the best one. You voted no to Treaty which would have brought a real improvement on democracy giving more power to a central Parliament (means: de-mo-cra-cy) and I'm the one against it.

Moreover the Treaty would give you the chance for the first time to withdraw from EU, so you may finally do your "real" referendum and leave, as the most of the people seems to like here inside.

What would today vote Ireland with a referendum in/out Europe?

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

Oh my god :eek: I actually cannot believe this. You are saying putting military into an international (originally economic) organization's treaty is that same as it being in a nations constitution?

Hmm. Interesting - why is it different? And why is that difference important?


intrigued,
Scofflaw

turgon

What part of "member states shall progressively increase their military capabilities" is being vague?

turgon

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. Interesting - why is it different? And why is that difference important?

Because it is between nations! Its basically a mutual defense pact. Which is way different to nations saying they will protect themselves.

ImDave

sopranos wrote: »

The tunnel was a psychological and physical improvement towards the whole idea of "big Europe" which released the British from the century-long idea of "splendid isolation".

So we will become more european if we do the same?

Lemming

sopranos wrote: »

That's the best one. You voted no to Treaty which would have brought a real improvement on democracy giving more power to a central Parliament (means: de-mo-cra-cy) and I'm the one against it.

I think you're the one who need to understand the concept of de-mo-cra-cy. You are the one demanding x, y, and z because the Irish people did not vote the way that you wanted them to. That they exercised their democratic right to vote is completely lost on you. So, unless the EU has a central parliament it will not be a democratic institution. Is that your point? Democracy is a concept, not a building with a few hundred seats in it.

saoranach

sopranos wrote: »

There's no militarization. There's a common understanding of "security" since we all are in the same ship. You want to be neutral? good, then stay outside EU, like Swiss. Otherwise you've to agree on a common security and defense regulations. It's the same argument I always argue with Austrians (where I leave, I'm an Italian in Austria), which have similar "neutrality" concerns.


The main idea of European Union is that it does not have to be a mere fact of money or business, otherwise it would have a been a whole failure. EU MUST grow in a political subject with more power than actual, only in this way everyone will be able to receive the benefits EU is bringing. This is not an easy step, however and it's a shame to loose other time thanks to a referendum where people where not even informed about.

This is why I voted no. I agree that the EU as a common market and monetary union is good thing and has certainly benefited Ireland. I dont see the need to continue increasing political, security etc cooperation. Im quite happy to be an irish citizen, I dont really want to be an EU citizen as well

sopranos

turgon wrote: »

Did you even read my post sopranos?? It very simply states that the Lisbon Treaty did contain militarization. How can you deny this. An official document outlines goals for the military and you are saying it doesn't???? Your position if becoming ever more untenable. Not like it was tenable in the first place.

Can you please read this:
http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/glance/index_en.htm

Do you see "military" or "army" or something similar as the main points of the Treaty? How can you argue the Treaty with the argument of militarization? The Treaty is promoting the civil rights which are the common base of all Europe, and will protect you against your same government, if needed.

turgon wrote: »

Oh my god :eek: I actually cannot believe this. You are saying putting military into an international (originally economic) organization's treaty is that same as it being in a nations constitution?

The idea of the Treaty (and of the EU constitution before) is indeed to build up a political subject out of Europe. Having a common foreign politic is the first step (and signal of strength) of the new Europe, it's therefore obvious that the Treaty has to deal with military issues. Or you like to see again things like half Europe going to Iraq and half staying at home?

sopranos

saoranach wrote: »

This is why I voted no. I agree that the EU as a common market and monetary union is good thing and has certainly benefited Ireland. I dont see the need to continue increasing political, security etc cooperation. Im quite happy to be an irish citizen, I dont really want to be an EU citizen as well

That's the point. You want the money, you don't want EU. Sorry, you've to make a choice. Leave EU, and forget the money.

marco_polo

turgon wrote: »

Because it is between nations! Its basically a mutual defense pact. Which is way different to nations saying they will protect themselves.

The second part of the question is why it that difference important? Is it really a big problem if other nations wish to move ahead ahead with closer co-operation on defense / security policy, once we have satisfactory opt out clauses secured for ourselves.

I think there is enough evidence built up over the past 50 years to suggest that fellow EU members (on the mainland) will not turn into millitary aggressors any time soon, and in fact have an excellent track record of avoiding unnescessary conflict.

Try not to mention the words UK and Iraq in your reply

sopranos

biko wrote: »

"The Italian government has defended its decision to use soldiers to patrol cities in an effort to curb crime, rejecting criticism that it will "militarise" the streets. The government announced that up to 2,500 soldiers, some of whom have served in Afghanistan, would be made available for a trial period of 6 months to help police in difficult areas

In Italy there are several problems, as you correctly state, which deserves the (welcomed) intervention from EU. I'm more than happy when EU forces our government to respect the European laws, otherwise they (the Italian corrupted politicians) would have continued to make the usual *hit as they made for several years.

rollie

marco_polo wrote: »

The second part of the question is why it that difference important? Is it really a big problem if other nations wish to move ahead ahead with closer co-operation on defense / security policy, once we have satisfactory opt out clauses secured for ourselves.

I think there is enough evidence built up over the past 50 years to suggest that fellow EU members (on the mainland) will not turn into millitary aggressors any time soon, and in fact have an excellent track record of avoiding unnescessary conflict.

Try not to mention the words UK and Iraq in your reply

afganistan

sopranos

Lemming wrote: »

I think you're the one who need to understand the concept of de-mo-cra-cy. You are the one demanding x, y, and z because the Irish people did not vote the way that you wanted them to. That they exercised their democratic right to vote is completely lost on you. So, unless the EU has a central parliament it will not be a democratic institution. Is that your point? Democracy is a concept, not a building with a few hundred seats in it.

No, I respect the Irish vote. But democracy means responsibility as well. So, the "electoral base" of Ireland is against EU? Good, then make a second referendum to leave EU.

It way too easy to be "inside" until the money comes and then say "no" when it's time to be responsible.

marco_polo

rollie wrote: »

afganistan

I was mainly leaving the UK out because they have a long history of giving Europe the two fingers and doing their own thing.

Of course some EU countries such as Spain did send small numbers of troops to the 'War of Terror'. But this was an independant national decision.

Cow Moolester

Honestly Sopranos I don't know why you're getting so worked up about this.
Mr. Barroso has said the treaty is not dead and so has our Taoiseach. A second referendum will most likely be held with a better campaign and revised opt-outs for our country to put the voters at ease.

The No Campaign here in Ireland wasn't anti-EU. It was against some of the contents of the treaty like the issue of neutrality etc.

rollie

sopranos wrote: »

No, I respect the Irish vote. But democracy means responsibility as well. So, the "electoral base" of Ireland is against EU? Good, then make a second referendum to leave EU.

It way too easy to be "inside" until the money comes and then say "no" when it's time to be responsible.

i still really dont see how you are making the connection that we dont want to be in the EU because we voted down changes to our constitution that were ambigeuos at best....i believe we (along with a lot of other people) did it with nice 1.

your arguement is turning into a rant...

rollie

marco_polo wrote: »

I was mainly leaving the UK out because they have a long history of giving Europe the two fingers and doing their own thing.

Of course some EU countries such as Spain did send small numbers of troops to the 'War of Terror'. But this was an independant national decision.

i know, but my one word answer was trying to make the larger point that a few countries that ratified the treaty are in NATO...now im not saying it would, but i am saying it could cause a conflict of interest in the one word political voice that the op is so in love with

Lemming

sopranos wrote: »

No, I respect the Irish vote.

No. You do not. If you respected the Irish vote, you would be looking for a means to deal with the fact that this particular treaty has fallen at a hurdle and needs re-examined. Instead you threw your toys out of the pram when you did not get "your" way and demand that we leave the EU.

As I've said before and I'll say again; your notion of democracy is horrendously skewed.

But democracy means responsibility as well. So, the "electoral base" of Ireland is against EU? Good, then make a second referendum to leave EU.

Where the f*ck do you keep getting it into your skull that because of this vote Ireland is suddently anti-EU? Really? You've managed to condense a complex situation into such a simplified notion that I would expect from the mind of a child; not a free-thinking, educated adult.

It way too easy to be "inside" until the money comes and then say "no" when it's time to be responsible.

So we should bend over and accept whatever the EU dictates because we received money? That is also not democracy. Nor would it be responsible of either an electorate to do so, or a body wishing to govern them to expect an electorate to do so too. "Childish" I believe is the term to use for that particular idea. Or "Simple".

marco_polo

rollie wrote: »

i know, but my one word answer was trying to make the larger point that a few countries that ratified the treaty are in NATO...now im not saying it would, but i am saying it could cause a conflict of interest in the one word political voice that the op is so in love with

That is probably and interesting discussion in itself, what might happen if there was a conflict between NATO and the common EU position.

From our point of view it would probably matter little as we would be under neither influence.

sopranos

rollie wrote: »

i still really dont see how you are making the connection that we dont want to be in the EU because we voted down changes to our constitution that were ambigeuos at best....i believe we (along with a lot of other people) did it with nice 1.

your arguement is turning into a rant...

It looks like, you're right. It's not only an Irish "thing" of course, is something that involves a lot of other European citizens. There's someone who's trying to go a step further, which believe in a view of Europe as a nation, which struggle for it. And many others that usually look to their pocket and don't give a damn about all the rest.
Again, is not a Irish problem only, but try to read all the threads in the "European Union" section. Well, if this is the way we're going (money, money, money), EU will loose its whole original sense.

Khannie

sopranos wrote: »

That's the point. You want the money, you don't want EU. Sorry, you've to make a choice. Leave EU, and forget the money.

AFAIK we're a net contributor now. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Khannie

sopranos wrote: »

Well, if this is the way we're going (money, money, money), EU will loose its whole original sense.

In fact, the original sense was a common market, so it was all about money money money.

I call troll at this point.