[Article] Lack of understanding main reason for Lisbon No

oscarBravo

kmick wrote: »

I did not vote as I was not in the country but if I was I would have voted no. I understood the issues, agreed that things like conscription, job losses etc were all red herrings and was fairly convinced there was nothing truly evil about the whole thing. However I would have voted no because there is absolutely no advantage in it for us.

kmick wrote: »

I did'nt did you read any of the other posts apart from your own.

Perhaps I misunderstood your points. When you said - twice - that you would have voted no, what did you mean?

kmick

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you can't see anything positive or negative in the treaty, why bother voting?

I was just responding to this question. The answer is I did'nt vote. Its just splitting hairs really as I did say I would vote no if I had been in the country.

oscarBravo

kmick wrote: »

I was just responding to this question. The answer is I did'nt vote. Its just splitting hairs really as I did say I would vote no if I had been in the country.

It's not splitting hairs. You said that your vote would have been "no" had you been in the country to vote, so the question "why bother voting no?" is pertinent. I'm not sure why you're going to such lengths to avoid answering it.

kmick

Well to me its like this. I own a car - and have enjoyed its benefits. Now someone offers me another car. Its the same model and year but it has a sunroof. French and Dutch car drivers have previously said they don't want the car in 2005. I don't want it either as it smells a bit funny. Therefore I say no thanks.

Does that explain my feelings?

djpbarry

kmick wrote: »

Well to me its like this. I own a car - and have enjoyed its benefits. Now someone offers me another car. Its the same model and year but it has a sunroof. French and Dutch car drivers have previously said they don't want the car in 2005. I don't want it either as it smells a bit funny. Therefore I say no thanks.

Does that explain my feelings?

Problem is, it was agreed in October 2002 that changes need to be made to the car. Your representatives then negotiated said changes on your behalf. You have said no thanks, but changes need to be made never-the-less, as previously agreed.

cornbb

kmick wrote: »

Well to me its like this. I own a car - and have enjoyed its benefits. Now someone offers me another car. Its the same model and year but it has a sunroof. French and Dutch car drivers have previously said they don't want the car in 2005. I don't want it either as it smells a bit funny. Therefore I say no thanks.

Does that explain my feelings?

Yep. Pity you're ignoring the tangible benefits the car offers you though, like increased fuel efficiency and more streamlined bodywork.

kmick

kmick wrote: »

1. Increase of power to the European Parliament.
2. The commission is slimmed down fairly and all states are represented equally
3. Permanent President of the European Council
4. The Councils must meet in the open.
5. Energy and the Environment become greater EU competencies
6. Greater role for EU peacekeepers
7. Includes charter of human rights
8. Increases co-operation in Justice and Policing
9. The two foreign policy posts are merged into one
10. Three pillar structure scrapped and merged into one structure

Well if these are the benefits then I can see why it failed. At least 8 of them are internal crap that they should just sort out and leave us all alone to pay taxes, live and die.

As for the others environment/human rights these are things which people have to take on themselves. Nothing will change while we drive SUV's and leave our sky box on. As for human rights they dont exist. The dont exist in Asia or Africa or South America. They are disappearing in North America. Europe thankfully is quite a liberal society but its mainly because in the past people thought for themselves. This is disappearing. The EU cannot claim this treaty will benefit Human rights while at the same time supplying passport and other details to the US on request.

I am banging on here. The main point I am trying so badly to make is that the EU does not stand for anything the common man wants to know about. The only thing which affects him/her on a daily basis is interest rates which the EU steadfastly refuses to lower.

Screw them and their elaborate, pointless meanderings into the arseend of nothingness.

Amen

I already gave my feedback to the 'tangible benefits' this treaty provides and gave the opinion that 8 of them are internal housekeeping and two are impossibles/improbables/unachievables.

I just dont want what they are selling. There are no tangible benefits to me.

cornbb

kmick wrote: »

I just dont want what they are selling. There are no tangible benefits to me.

Have you considered that the benefits the treaty offers to the EU and to Ireland can have a knock-on effect on your everyday life? Increased economic activity, enhanced co-operation on defence and crime etc... Instead of thinking "how is this good for me" try thinking "how is this good for everybody".

Scofflaw

kmick wrote: »

Well to me its like this. I own a car - and have enjoyed its benefits. Now someone offers me another car. Its the same model and year but it has a sunroof. French and Dutch car drivers have previously said they don't want the car in 2005. I don't want it either as it smells a bit funny. Therefore I say no thanks.

I'm not sure about that analogy at all, though, because Lisbon isn't a new Treaty but a series of amendments to the existing treaties. In that sense, it's rather more like saying that you have a car, which you think is working well, but which your garage says needs some fixes under the hood - and they give you a complicated explanation about compressors and spark ratios. They claim that it will make your car run better, and future-proof it for another couple of years.

Mates of yours, with the identical car, already said no to the fixes a couple of years ago. A load of other people around you claim you'd be better off with an entirely different car, or even ditching cars altogether.

Essentially, the question is - do you trust the garage? Are they just making this stuff up for their own benefit?

cordially,
Scofflaw

WooPeeA

kmick wrote: »

Well to me its like this. I own a car - and have enjoyed its benefits. Now someone offers me another car. Its the same model and year but it has a sunroof. French and Dutch car drivers have previously said they don't want the car in 2005. I don't want it either as it smells a bit funny. Therefore I say no thanks.

Does that explain my feelings?

kmick, but they offer you an extra car - you still can keep yours.

molloyjh

heyjude wrote: »

I think the results of this survey must be the most predictable ever. The government have since day one been looking for a reason to have another referendum on the same unaltered treaty, they needed a reason, their preferred option was research finding that a large number of people voted No because they were confused or uninformed.

So they commission a survey into why people voted No and low and behold, the research finds exactly what the government hoped for. Has a company ever commissioned a study and not got the results that they wanted ?

Now the government will claim that we need a new information campaign, following which, they will claim that as people weren't properly informed before the first referendum, the result is open to question and to clarify the issue another vote is needed on the same treaty.


Government claims that they have ruled nothing out is sheer nonsense, they just won't admit it. The only thing they have ruled out is telling the truth, their preferred option from the moment the first vote was lost, was to have another vote. They just needed to find some credible reason why they could ignore the democratic decision, so commission some research and look for some 'golden' reasons among the research findings. Hey presto.

I imagine a great many people were confused after the last general election too, as the promises made, seem to have either vanished altogether or in some cases been totally reversed. I wonder if a survey showed this, would they be contemplating a general election ? Nope, I didn't think so either.

I'd love to interview Dick Roche or any of the other senior ministers with a polygraph, so see whether they have decided when the 2nd referendum will be ? Or whether as they claim, they are looking at other options too, since if you reject every other option, you have reached a decision, but if as it is claimed they have ruled nothing out, then renegotiation or alterations to the Treaty are being considered.

As the ad says, there's always one. Although I'm surprised there wasn't more.

Yes this is all a huge conspiracy against the Irish people, despite the fact that the results are quite similar to the EU flash poll run by Gallup immediatley after the referendum itself and despite the fact that there has been no evidence to refute either poll in any way shape or form, still it must be lies. :rolleyes:

As has been discussed elsewhere a GE is a very different matter with a large number of variables and personal interpretations, whereas something like Lisbon is more solid and definable.

As for the "no benefit to me" stance taken by kmick I have to say, and apologies for being harsh, but that very me fein attitude is exactly why this country is such a mess poltiically. The Lisbon Treaty didn't contain any direct benefits, but more indirect benefits. And if its not a good or a bad thing for you, but it is a good thing for others, i.e. the various departments within the EU etc, then it is purely selfish to deny those others beneficial changes just because it has no effect on you. If others stand to benefit and you don't stand to lose then surely you should vote Yes? Otherwise you're having a net negative impact when it could be net positive....

kmick

cornbb wrote: »

Have you considered that the benefits the treaty offers to the EU and to Ireland can have a knock-on effect on your everyday life? Increased economic activity, enhanced co-operation on defence and crime etc... Instead of thinking "how is this good for me" try thinking "how is this good for everybody".

Ask not what your country can do for you rather what you can do for your country sort of thing? This type of thinking is fine when you talk about helping out in the community, volunteerism, activism. But I have no loyalty to the EU ideal. As far as I am concerned we are a common economic and social block and currently a net contributor to this block via my taxes. We are doing our bit.

As I keep saying this is 80% internal housekeeping 20% unachievable.

WooPeeA wrote: »

kmick, but they offer you an extra car - you still can keep yours.

Why do I need two cars?

kmick

molloyjh wrote: »

As for the "no benefit to me" stance taken by kmick I have to say, and apologies for being harsh, but that very me fein attitude is exactly why this country is such a mess poltiically.

The country is in a mess politically because politicians have consistently shown themselves to be serial underachievers and in many cases crooks.I am just adopting the same attitude as them. They were my role models.

molloyjh wrote: »

The Lisbon Treaty didn't contain any direct benefits, but more indirect benefits. And if its not a good or a bad thing for you, but it is a good thing for others, i.e. the various departments within the EU etc, then it is purely selfish to deny those others beneficial changes just because it has no effect on you. If others stand to benefit and you don't stand to lose then surely you should vote Yes? Otherwise you're having a net negative impact when it could be net positive....

"Indirect benefits for others" ha ha ! sounds like a Labour slogan.

Give me 2 or 3 indirect benefits for others from this treaty that are not what joe soap would consider internal housekeeping or unachievable (e.g. Human rights).

WooPeeA

kmick wrote: »

Why do I need two cars?

- For own security
- To have a guy who offered you that car (EU members) as best friends
- To be a part of a big and strong (probably the strongest we ever had in Europe) family
- To be respected in the world

Another thing is that if we won't build stronger Europe, America as well as China and other countries will try to depend Europe on themselves.

I don't think Ireland and Europe are able to face problems of 21st century being in today's condition. Security is own common business. So I think if someone fight against EU, at the same time he fights against his own country.

Remember that today is not yesterday and yesterday's problems are not problems of tomorrow.

sink

kmick wrote: »

Give me 2 or 3 indirect benefits for others from this treaty that are not what joe soap would consider internal housekeeping or unachievable (e.g. Human rights).

I find your attitude difficult to comprehend. It's impossible to know exactly how figuratively speaking 'EU housekeeping' will directly benefit you in the same way that physically tidying your own house will directly benefit you. It simply lowers the risks of something bad happening, it makes the institutions of the EU stronger and better able to work towards your benefit, it makes the EU more competitive on an international level and gives it greater influence giving you more influence.

I could write a list of benefits that Joe Soap will receive but I would just be purely speculating. But because the end results are difficult to see does not mean we should not go down this road.

You seem to be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

kmick

sink wrote: »

But because the end results are difficult to see does not mean we should not go down this road.

I would argue it does.

Heres the poster that will win it for you when it inevitably gets run again.

"Lisbon II - Indirect befits for others"

'Now including some environmental stuff and a Human Rights blurb'

Because you may not know why you want it or need it but I assure you you do.

djpbarry

kmick wrote: »

As far as I am concerned we are a common economic and social block and currently a net contributor to this block via my taxes.

No, we're not. Last year we received about €500 million (net) from the EU. We're currently expected to be a net contributor by about 2013, but that'll probably be pushed back another few years given the current economic conditions.

kmick

djpbarry wrote: »

No, we're not. Last year we received about €500 million (net) from the EU. We're currently expected to be a net contributor by about 2013, but that'll probably be pushed back another few years given the current economic conditions.

Yes you are right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union

molloyjh

kmick wrote: »

The country is in a mess politically because politicians have consistently shown themselves to be serial underachievers and in many cases crooks.I am just adopting the same attitude as them. They were my role models.

So let me get this straight, you look down upon the politicians but still strive to be like them? Sounds like a very weak excuse to me! And what exactly have you, as one of those to whom the politicians are accountable, done to make a difference to politics in this country? Or are you one of these people who moan and complain until election day and then sit it out?

kmick wrote: »

"Indirect benefits for others" ha ha ! sounds like a Labour slogan.

Give me 2 or 3 indirect benefits for others from this treaty that are not what joe soap would consider internal housekeeping or unachievable (e.g. Human rights).

1. The combining of the foreign affairs roles into one role would make the EU a far easier organisation to deal with for external countries. This can help speed up the new membership process for some countries as they will now have one recognisable contact rather than several obscure ones. This then obviously has a knock on effect on the people of those countries.

2. The new QMV system would be dynamic, meaning that any major shifts in populations and/or the introduction of any new members would no longer mean a complete revamp of the QMV weighting each time something like this happened. This, as you can well imagine, would be a source of huge debate and negotiation and so to remove this would allow the Council and Parliament to be able to get on with the real day to day stuff quicker and easier - making life easier on them and indirectly benefiting every one of us also.

3. Less Commissioners and less Commissions means less cost to you and me in that area and the money can be funnelled elsewhere to departments that need it - therefore the people in those departments win, and anyone that benefits from that department benefits also.

4. The Council voting in public gives us the benefit of seeing exactly what our elected representatives are doing on our behalf, which gives us the direct benefit of being able to hold them accountable and putting them under additional pressure to do what we want.

5. Increased co-operation in the areas of policing and justice will no doubt have a very direct benefit on many people, even if you are not one, and really shouldn't need to be explained. However, how could you possibly know what the future may hold and how could you be sure you wouldn't directly benefit from it? This area could well include matters relating to, say, border control, which could prevent the movement of people such as fraudsters etc even if we do not participate ourselves. You and I are just as suseptable to fraud as anyone else is. Either way increased levels of co-operation in these areas will have direct benefits on many through-out the EU, possibly you or I also.

6. This "unattainable" human rights element is a lot more than you seem to think it is. It would mean that the EU as a whole must obey the human rights charter, and give people who feel like they have not been given these rights by the EU a method by which they can take action and receive compensation. That I would deem as a direct benefit to those people.

7. A greater role for EU peacekeepers, like the policing and justice point, should be quite self-explanatory. My dad served with the UN in the former Yugoslavia about 12 years ago and he can personally describe the benefits of peacekeeping as a whole. A greater role for EU peacekeepers would be of direct benefit to the people those areas that the peacekeepers go into. Additionally the EU is not the UN and therefore does not have the ties nor the dependancy on the US or its support.

8. The areas of energy and the environment may not have a direct impact on us or anyone of this current generation, but has the possibility to directly impact future generations, again this is pretty self explanatory. I presume you either do have kids or will have some one day (given that the vast majority of us do/will).

9. The President post will be elected by the Parliament giving us indirect input for each President for 2.5 years every 2.5 years rather than direct input for 6 months every 13.5 years. This makes each President accountable for their role in the position to the entire EU directly rather than a chance for each head of state to push their own agenda with no real EU accounatability at all. This may be an indirect benefit to us as it would pressure the person in the post to act in all of our interests, but it still a benefit.

10. The Citizens Initiative gives people direct input into EU decision making and as a tool petitioning has worked well on the continent even if we haven't seen the benefits of it here. In fact I believe it was a petition from EU citizens that led to it being included.

You asked for 2 or 3 I gave you 10, and these were just off the top of my head. I'm sure if I were to sit down and go through this properly I'd come up with more. But despite all of this because you can't see any immediate and direct benefits to you as an individual you oppose it. That is why I deem your position a selfish one. It ignores the possibility that maybe you may fall foul of the criminal element in society that the greater cooperation in policing could prevent, but most importantly ignores every single other human being, not just within the EU, but also outside it. You have said you voted no because you saw no direct benefits to yourself, not because you saw no direct benefits to anyone else. Increased police co-operation could help bring an end to a number of human trafficing rings, which I would hope we all want to see happen. It could help deal with drug trafficing also, which again I hope we all want to see. But from your perspective none of this matters because it has no direct impact on you.

"To hell with a utopia for all, I just want a utopia for me."

thehighground

molloyjh wrote: »

"To hell with a utopia for all, I just want a utopia for me."

So, you think the other countries involved are not looking out for their own interests.

Fairplay to Spain - not only have they legally helped themselves to most of our fish, they are going to get €2.2 bn (07-13), while Ireland's waters will still be fished and all we get is €0.6 bn in the same period.

No surprise that Poland will want to support the EU elite over the Lisbon Treaty - they are in line for €65 Bn. Surprise, surprise that Luxembourg's parliament wouldn't want to upset the EU elite - they are in line for €7.7 bn (that works out at €15,170 per person as compared to Ireland's €139 per person).

EU Budget Table here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union

thehighground

molloyjh wrote: »

S

1. The combining of the foreign affairs roles into one role would make the EU a far easier organisation to deal with for external countries. This can help speed up the new membership process for some countries as they will now have one recognisable contact rather than several obscure ones. This then obviously has a knock on effect on the people of those countries.

What do you mean about obscure contact points? Why would anyone want to contact the EU Foreign Minister - its not a country

2. The new QMV system would be dynamic, meaning that any major shifts in populations and/or the introduction of any new members would no longer mean a complete revamp of the QMV weighting each time something like this happened. This, as you can well imagine, would be a source of huge debate and negotiation and so to remove this would allow the Council and Parliament to be able to get on with the real day to day stuff quicker and easier - making life easier on them and indirectly benefiting every one of us also.

The new QMV system is diabolical as far as we are concerned. This will remove us from ever being at the heart of Europe (whatever that is meant to mean anyway).

3. Less Commissioners and less Commissions means less cost to you and me in that area and the money can be funnelled elsewhere to departments that need it - therefore the people in those departments win, and anyone that benefits from that department benefits also.

Total bull - no commissioner means no voice and no power gets no favours, out of sight out of mind etc. For instance, even with a Minister, Ireland, the only European country that does not have a land bridge to Europe will be saddled with huge levys/taxes for using air transport from 2012. No concessions made by our European colleagues! The levys will be approx. €40 per person to step on a plane. How can we compete with anyone on mainland Europe?

4. The Council voting in public gives us the benefit of seeing exactly what our elected representatives are doing on our behalf, which gives us the direct benefit of being able to hold them accountable and putting them under additional pressure to do what we want.

Well, since we are such a minority, they probably won't be achieving too much on our behalf. No doubt the 'consultant' report industry will do very well on commisioned EU dust catchers though.

5. Increased co-operation in the areas of policing and justice will no doubt have a very direct benefit on many people, even if you are not one, and really shouldn't need to be explained. However, how could you possibly know what the future may hold and how could you be sure you wouldn't directly benefit from it? This area could well include matters relating to, say, border control, which could prevent the movement of people such as fraudsters etc even if we do not participate ourselves. You and I are just as suseptable to fraud as anyone else is. Either way increased levels of co-operation in these areas will have direct benefits on many through-out the EU, possibly you or I also.

Right - big brother. And the superiority of the European Court of Justice to Irish Supreme Court.

6. This "unattainable" human rights element is a lot more than you seem to think it is. It would mean that the EU as a whole must obey the human rights charter, and give people who feel like they have not been given these rights by the EU a method by which they can take action and receive compensation. That I would deem as a direct benefit to those people.

Can you explain to me why David Norris isn't in favour of the Lisbon Treaty, or indeed Kathy Sinnott, both who have had reason to resort to the European courts?

7. A greater role for EU peacekeepers, like the policing and justice point, should be quite self-explanatory. My dad served with the UN in the former Yugoslavia about 12 years ago and he can personally describe the benefits of peacekeeping as a whole. A greater role for EU peacekeepers would be of direct benefit to the people those areas that the peacekeepers go into. Additionally the EU is not the UN and therefore does not have the ties nor the dependancy on the US or its support.

Could you please explain to me what is wrong with UN peacekeeping missions?

Could you ask your Dad to explain to you why the Irish Defence Forces sought to differentiate themselves from the French army in Chad? I believe they even wear different uniforms and it is hushed up to the local that there are any French involved in this Irish led mission.

8. The areas of energy and the environment may not have a direct impact on us or anyone of this current generation, but has the possibility to directly impact future generations, again this is pretty self explanatory. I presume you either do have kids or will have some one day (given that the vast majority of us do/will).

I would hope as a nation that is fairly close to the land, would understand this a lot better than most industrialised European countries.

Do you think that the EU should not be importing beef from Brazil because the more beef we import from Brazil, the more rain forests will be cut down to farm beef? Much more sensible to pay them to not cut down their rainforests - but hey, Europe wants cheap food!

9. The President post will be elected by the Parliament giving us indirect input for each President for 2.5 years every 2.5 years rather than direct input for 6 months every 13.5 years. This makes each President accountable for their role in the position to the entire EU directly rather than a chance for each head of state to push their own agenda with no real EU accounatability at all. This may be an indirect benefit to us as it would pressure the person in the post to act in all of our interests, but it still a benefit

.

And anyone who is elected will do exactly what does with the most votes want. That is of no benefit to us.

10. The Citizens Initiative gives people direct input into EU decision making and as a tool petitioning has worked well on the continent even if we haven't seen the benefits of it here. In fact I believe it was a petition from EU citizens that led to it being included.

Look, the EU seem to think that the result of an Irish referenda is not binding ... if the elite don't like what is petitioned for, forget it.

You asked for 2 or 3 I gave you 10, and these were just off the top of my head. I'm sure if I were to sit down and go through this properly I'd come up with more. But despite all of this because you can't see any immediate and direct benefits to you as an individual you oppose it. That is why I deem your position a selfish one. It ignores the possibility that maybe you may fall foul of the criminal element in society that the greater cooperation in policing could prevent, but most importantly ignores every single other human being, not just within the EU, but also outside it. You have said you voted no because you saw no direct benefits to yourself, not because you saw no direct benefits to anyone else. Increased police co-operation could help bring an end to a number of human trafficing rings, which I would hope we all want to see happen. It could help deal with drug trafficing also, which again I hope we all want to see. But from your perspective none of this matters because it has no direct impact on you.

Most people would support the cooperation on dealing with criminals etc. (but bear in mind what happened to the Bermingham Six etc) - a lot of those new EU countries do not have very well developed systems of justice just yet. Why do we need a Lisbon Treaty to deal with these problems?

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

So, you think the other countries involved are not looking out for their own interests.

Fairplay to Spain - not only have they legally helped themselves to most of our fish, they are going to get €2.2 bn (07-13), while Ireland's waters will still be fished and all we get is €0.6 bn in the same period.

No surprise that Poland will want to support the EU elite over the Lisbon Treaty - they are in line for €65 Bn. Surprise, surprise that Luxembourg's parliament wouldn't want to upset the EU elite - they are in line for €7.7 bn (that works out at €15,170 per person as compared to Ireland's €139 per person).

EU Budget Table here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union

Eh, the same argument could have been used for us 10/20 years ago.
Spain should eventually become contributers like we will.

Poland gets €65 Bn so they will support the EU Elite?
Where we that easily bought?
Should the EU throw us €65 Bn. to make everything ok?

And No voters accuse Yes voters of calling them stupid! :eek:

Judas comes to mind!

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

Eh, the same argument could have used for us 10/20 years ago.
Spain should eventually become contributers like we will.

Poland get €65 Bn so they will support the EU Elite?

Where we that easily bought?

Should the EU throw us €65 Bn. to make everything ok?

And No voters accuse Yes voters of calling them stupid! :eek:

Judas comes to mind!

Just trying to explain the '26 other countries support of Lisbon Treaty." Spain have done as well, if not better out of the EU as Ireland. Portugal is another country who got as much a we did, but didn't make as much of what they got. (which leads me to believe that it was our tax incentives are far more important than our membership of the EU).

I'm trying to explain why some countries, at this stage of their development might support the Lisbon Treaty. This European ideal is just bull, so I wish people would realise that the 'ungrateful' Irish argument is naive and laughable. Most of the other countries just really need the cash. And there is nothing wrong with that - just don't spin it into some great 'ideal'. They are just prostituting themselves.

And you have to admit that as a longtime member, Luxembourg is doing rather well. Wonder does that have anything to do with so many EU civil servants living there?

oscarBravo

thehighground wrote: »

The new QMV system is diabolical as far as we are concerned.

You can't just throw out a remark like that; you have to support it. I could just as easily say "the new QMV system will permanently place Ireland in the driving seat of the EU" - but I'm not going to, because it's not true, and I can't back it up.

Total bull - no commissioner means no voice and no power gets no favours, out of sight out of mind etc. For instance, even with a Minister, Ireland, the only European country that does not have a land bridge to Europe will be saddled with huge levys/taxes for using air transport from 2012.

I'm confused. You're simultaneously claiming that by not having a commissioner, we'll lose out - thereby implying that our commissioner's job is to represent our interests (which it's not, and there's ample historical precedent to demonstrate this), while also pointing out that having a commissioner has done us no favours.

Which is it?

Right - big brother. And the superiority of the European Court of Justice to Irish Supreme Court.

Do you even know what the role of the ECJ is?

Look, the EU seem to think that the result of an Irish referenda is not binding ...

Bullsh*t, and you know it. If the referendum wasn't binding, Ireland would ratify the treaty on January 1. We won't, and you know it, and talk of non-binding referenda is just inane soundbyting.

if the elite don't like what is petitioned for, forget it.

Who are the elite?

Why do we need a Lisbon Treaty to deal with these problems?

What do you suggest in its place?

molloyjh

thehighground wrote: »

So, you think the other countries involved are not looking out for their own interests.

Fairplay to Spain - not only have they legally helped themselves to most of our fish, they are going to get €2.2 bn (07-13), while Ireland's waters will still be fished and all we get is €0.6 bn in the same period.

No surprise that Poland will want to support the EU elite over the Lisbon Treaty - they are in line for €65 Bn. Surprise, surprise that Luxembourg's parliament wouldn't want to upset the EU elite - they are in line for €7.7 bn (that works out at €15,170 per person as compared to Ireland's €139 per person).

EU Budget Table here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union

That whole post was on an individuals position, not a states position, so that response isn't really valid.

thehighground wrote: »

What do you mean about obscure contact points? Why would anyone want to contact the EU Foreign Minister - its not a country

The foreign affairs area includes things like potential members states as well as representing the EU as a whole in agreed areas. I'm sure though you realise all of these things.....

thehighground wrote: »

The new QMV system is diabolical as far as we are concerned. This will remove us from ever being at the heart of Europe (whatever that is meant to mean anyway).

While I agree re that whole "heart of Europe" lark - what the hell is that really about? - the proposed QMV method makes no real difference to our voting weight. If you don't believe me do the research, but I'm not going through a point that has been dealt with countless times in dozens of other threads that you have been a part of all over again. It's obviously been a waste of time thus far apparently and there's no reason to believe it won't be now.

thehighground wrote: »

Total bull - no commissioner means no voice and no power gets no favours, out of sight out of mind etc. For instance, even with a Minister, Ireland, the only European country that does not have a land bridge to Europe will be saddled with huge levys/taxes for using air transport from 2012. No concessions made by our European colleagues! The levys will be approx. €40 per person to step on a plane. How can we compete with anyone on mainland Europe?

See OBs point re this. The Commissioner has never been, is not and will never be our voice in the EU. That is down to our Ministers in the Council and our MEPs in the Parliament. This is fundamental EU stuff here and if you can't get this right after it being explained over and over and over then I'm beginning to wonder should I even bother this time.

thehighground wrote: »

Well, since we are such a minority, they probably won't be achieving too much on our behalf. No doubt the 'consultant' report industry will do very well on commisioned EU dust catchers though.

So what exactly is your suggested solution? Pull out of the EU because we are a minority regardless of the benefits membership brings?

thehighground wrote: »

Right - big brother. And the superiority of the European Court of Justice to Irish Supreme Court.

I have no idea what your point is here? Is there one? Do you understand the role of the ECJ?

thehighground wrote: »

Can you explain to me why David Norris isn't in favour of the Lisbon Treaty, or indeed Kathy Sinnott, both who have had reason to resort to the European courts?

Surely thats a question for them and not me?

thehighground wrote: »

Could you please explain to me what is wrong with UN peacekeeping missions?

Where did I say there was anything wrong with them? I did suggest that maybe certain areas may prefer EU peacekeeping rather than UN peacekeeping due to the American element though and the US can veto UN missions but have no control over EU ones. It just provides more options on that front really.

thehighground wrote: »

Could you ask your Dad to explain to you why the Irish Defence Forces sought to differentiate themselves from the French army in Chad? I believe they even wear different uniforms and it is hushed up to the local that there are any French involved in this Irish led mission.

No idea. Relevance?

thehighground wrote: »

I would hope as a nation that is fairly close to the land, would understand this a lot better than most industrialised European countries.

Do you think that the EU should not be importing beef from Brazil because the more beef we import from Brazil, the more rain forests will be cut down to farm beef? Much more sensible to pay them to not cut down their rainforests - but hey, Europe wants cheap food!

Don't know enough about this issue to comment specifically but there's always a balancing act to be done regarding the peoples needs and the environments.

thehighground wrote: »

And anyone who is elected will do exactly what does with the most votes want. That is of no benefit to us.

If you read the post in full you'll see I was talking about benefits to anyone/everyone. It IS of benefit to EU citizens on a whole.

thehighground wrote: »

Look, the EU seem to think that the result of an Irish referenda is not binding ... if the elite don't like what is petitioned for, forget it.

Total rubbish. If this was the case the Treaty would be ratified and implemented. As it stands it won't be so stop scaremongering, its not productive to this debate.

thehighground wrote: »

Most people would support the cooperation on dealing with criminals etc. (but bear in mind what happened to the Bermingham Six etc) - a lot of those new EU countries do not have very well developed systems of justice just yet. Why do we need a Lisbon Treaty to deal with these problems?

We could go about this in an ad hoc manner but that means that in one case a member state could do one thing and in the next they could do something totally different. The Treaty would bind us all to the same agreements and the same standards - a sort of common denominator from which additional co-operation could be done on an ad hoc basis from there. It also provides a standard for new members to adhere to.

kmick

molloyjh wrote: »

So let me get this straight, you look down upon the politicians but still strive to be like them? Sounds like a very weak excuse to me! And what exactly have you, as one of those to whom the politicians are accountable, done to make a difference to politics in this country? Or are you one of these people who moan and complain until election day and then sit it out?



1. The combining of the foreign affairs roles into one role would make the EU a far easier organisation to deal with for external countries. This can help speed up the new membership process for some countries as they will now have one recognisable contact rather than several obscure ones. This then obviously has a knock on effect on the people of those countries.

2. The new QMV system would be dynamic, meaning that any major shifts in populations and/or the introduction of any new members would no longer mean a complete revamp of the QMV weighting each time something like this happened. This, as you can well imagine, would be a source of huge debate and negotiation and so to remove this would allow the Council and Parliament to be able to get on with the real day to day stuff quicker and easier - making life easier on them and indirectly benefiting every one of us also.

3. Less Commissioners and less Commissions means less cost to you and me in that area and the money can be funnelled elsewhere to departments that need it - therefore the people in those departments win, and anyone that benefits from that department benefits also.

4. The Council voting in public gives us the benefit of seeing exactly what our elected representatives are doing on our behalf, which gives us the direct benefit of being able to hold them accountable and putting them under additional pressure to do what we want.

5. Increased co-operation in the areas of policing and justice will no doubt have a very direct benefit on many people, even if you are not one, and really shouldn't need to be explained. However, how could you possibly know what the future may hold and how could you be sure you wouldn't directly benefit from it? This area could well include matters relating to, say, border control, which could prevent the movement of people such as fraudsters etc even if we do not participate ourselves. You and I are just as suseptable to fraud as anyone else is. Either way increased levels of co-operation in these areas will have direct benefits on many through-out the EU, possibly you or I also.

6. This "unattainable" human rights element is a lot more than you seem to think it is. It would mean that the EU as a whole must obey the human rights charter, and give people who feel like they have not been given these rights by the EU a method by which they can take action and receive compensation. That I would deem as a direct benefit to those people.

7. A greater role for EU peacekeepers, like the policing and justice point, should be quite self-explanatory. My dad served with the UN in the former Yugoslavia about 12 years ago and he can personally describe the benefits of peacekeeping as a whole. A greater role for EU peacekeepers would be of direct benefit to the people those areas that the peacekeepers go into. Additionally the EU is not the UN and therefore does not have the ties nor the dependancy on the US or its support.

8. The areas of energy and the environment may not have a direct impact on us or anyone of this current generation, but has the possibility to directly impact future generations, again this is pretty self explanatory. I presume you either do have kids or will have some one day (given that the vast majority of us do/will).

9. The President post will be elected by the Parliament giving us indirect input for each President for 2.5 years every 2.5 years rather than direct input for 6 months every 13.5 years. This makes each President accountable for their role in the position to the entire EU directly rather than a chance for each head of state to push their own agenda with no real EU accounatability at all. This may be an indirect benefit to us as it would pressure the person in the post to act in all of our interests, but it still a benefit.

10. The Citizens Initiative gives people direct input into EU decision making and as a tool petitioning has worked well on the continent even if we haven't seen the benefits of it here. In fact I believe it was a petition from EU citizens that led to it being included.

You asked for 2 or 3 I gave you 10, and these were just off the top of my head. I'm sure if I were to sit down and go through this properly I'd come up with more. But despite all of this because you can't see any immediate and direct benefits to you as an individual you oppose it. That is why I deem your position a selfish one. It ignores the possibility that maybe you may fall foul of the criminal element in society that the greater cooperation in policing could prevent, but most importantly ignores every single other human being, not just within the EU, but also outside it. You have said you voted no because you saw no direct benefits to yourself, not because you saw no direct benefits to anyone else. Increased police co-operation could help bring an end to a number of human trafficing rings, which I would hope we all want to see happen. It could help deal with drug trafficing also, which again I hope we all want to see. But from your perspective none of this matters because it has no direct impact on you.

"To hell with a utopia for all, I just want a utopia for me."

In fairness to you I applaud you making an effort to address all the impossibly boring pints above. Can I re-address very quickly
1. Two roles into 1 -Internal housekeeping
2. One weighting system replaced with another - Internal housekeeping.
3. Less commissioners - Internal housekeeping
4. Public Voting - Good
5. Policing and Justice - Not attainable without some massive European police forec which I dont think is desirable by any of the members.
6. Human Rights - A concept which can never be attained.
7. 'A greater role for peacekeepers' - Just a slogan
8. Energy/environment - Energy is a commodity price determined by market. Environment - Fines imposed by EU paid out of public taxes is not working as the pain is not directly felt by anyone.
9. President post - Internal housekeeping
10. Public Petitions - A juvenile solution to a non-existent problem which is the concept that people want an active role in their governance. Most people dont - they are happy to leave the governance to their government. The fact that governments dont always act in the best interests of their electorate is another story.

oscarBravo

kmick wrote: »

1. Two roles into 1 -Internal housekeeping
2. One weighting system replaced with another - Internal housekeeping.
3. Less commissioners - Internal housekeeping

...

9. President post - Internal housekeeping

Would you care to explain how this "internal housekeeping" can be achieved without the introduction of an amending treaty, given that all the proposed changes are to situations established by existing treaties?

5. Policing and Justice - Not attainable without some massive European police forec which I dont think is desirable by any of the members.

Inter-force co-operation can't be achieved without a massive European police force? Care to explain why?

6. Human Rights - A concept which can never be attained.

Why not?

7. 'A greater role for peacekeepers' - Just a slogan

Too easy to dismiss someone's argument like that. What, specifically, is unrealistic about the proposal?

8. Energy/environment - Energy is a commodity price determined by market.

You don't think energy security is a goal worth striving for in a unified way?

Environment - Fines imposed by EU paid out of public taxes is not working as the pain is not directly felt by anyone.

The environment currently isn't a core EU objective. If it was, the EU could work more effectively in this area.

10. Public Petitions - A juvenile solution to a non-existent problem which is the concept that people want an active role in their governance. Most people dont - they are happy to leave the governance to their government.

That goes somewhat against the grain of the constant complaints about the "undemocratic" EU, doesn't it?

sink

thehighground wrote: »

For instance, even with a Minister, Ireland, the only European country that does not have a land bridge to Europe will be saddled with huge levys/taxes for using air transport from 2012. No concessions made by our European colleagues! The levys will be approx. €40 per person to step on a plane. How can we compete with anyone on mainland Europe?

Other people have addressed the rest of your points well so I'm not going to repeat them. I just want to add that this statement in particular is complete bull****. Cyprus and Malta are two countries without any land bridge and then there are the dozens of other islands which are territories of one country or another that don't have a land bridge. Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, Crete, Majorca among many others.

Compete on what exactly? Almost all of our exports/imports are done via container ships. And if you want to travel to Europe you can take a ferry which would be the equivalent of a mainlander taking a train.

kmick

oscarBravo wrote: »

Would you care to explain how this "internal housekeeping" can be achieved without the introduction of an amending treaty, given that all the proposed changes are to situations established by existing treaties? Inter-force co-operation can't be achieved without a massive European police force? Care to explain why? Why not? Too easy to dismiss someone's argument like that. What, specifically, is unrealistic about the proposal? You don't think energy security is a goal worth striving for in a unified way? The environment currently isn't a core EU objective. If it was, the EU could work more effectively in this area. That goes somewhat against the grain of the constant complaints about the "undemocratic" EU, doesn't it?

To be honest this is getting more boring than the actual treaty. I asked you to list 2/3 advantages of the Lisbon treaty to the common man. You gave me 10 almost all of which are
1) Internal housekeeping
2) Mumbo Jumbo (Human Rights/Energy Security/Greater Role for Peacekeepers)

I have said it three times now Oil/Gas etc is a commodity and its price is determined by the market. We have seen this as the world scrambles to keep up with 150 dollar oil and now a couple of months later we have 90 dollar oil. Neither of these prices have been affected by anything a politician says or does and if you think it can be affected by such I would suggest it is naive.

The reason Inter-force co-operation has not and will never work is
Language - There is no universal language of the EU and when you are dealing with something as complicated as the law that is fatal.
Cultural - The Irish force works at a different pace and style to say a UK force and in a totally different style to say a Portuguese force would.
Priority - a local case will always trump a intra-national case - simple as.

You have done more to convince me that this treaty is so shallow focused and irrelevant than when I first looked at this post. Thanks for that.

kmick

molloyjh wrote: »

So let me get this straight, you look down upon the politicians but still strive to be like them? Sounds like a very weak excuse to me! And what exactly have you, as one of those to whom the politicians are accountable, done to make a difference to politics in this country? Or are you one of these people who moan and complain until election day and then sit it out?

I don't look down on them at all. I think they are what they are - 'under achievers and in many cases crooks'.

When I said they are my role models it was firmly tongue in cheek. The point I was making was that they don't inspire confidence albeit in a round about way.