The Next Referendum Vote Clock Is Ticking Down...

ShooterSF

passive wrote: »

HILARIOUS. You know dmn well those issues were influences for a large portion of the No voting population. Fianna Fail didn't "admit" those weren't issues before. They desperately tried to explain that they weren't, while liars and charlitans insisted they were and confused and tricked everybody. You don't give a flying **** what's in the treaty or what they did or didn't change about it. Your sole decision making requirement is in your username.

So come on then, what would you like to see changed?

In my Username? Can I make it clear to you that the SF are my initials NOT my voting preference.

So don't assume I dont give a flying **** when you don't know me thanks.

While youw were making such fantastic assumptions nice of you to pack in the no voters into a pile of idiots who fell for such stupid comments. And you'd prefer our government pander to their needs than legit no voters. Oh wait there werent any right? That would upset you're view of reality.

As for changes as I said Id prefer to stay as is. If that cant be done I'd rather we went back to a basic trading arrangement and take the legal side out of the EU. Failing that again i'd settle for a two tier Europe as stated before by Yes voters.

passive

ShooterSF wrote: »

In my Username? Can I make it clear to you that the SF are my initials NOT my voting preference.

Well...Then I totally took that up wrong, and apologise. That was presumptuous of me and now I look stupid...

I'd rather we went back to a basic trading arrangement and take the legal side out of the EU. Failing that again i'd settle for a two tier Europe as stated before by Yes voters.

If that's what you want then I think your wishes are even further from the no-voting majority than mine...

O'Morris

ShooterSF wrote: »

As for changes as I said Id prefer to stay as is. If that cant be done I'd rather we went back to a basic trading arrangement and take the legal side out of the EU. Failing that again i'd settle for a two tier Europe as stated before by Yes voters.

Seconded.

ShooterSF

passive wrote: »

Well...Then I totally took that up wrong, and apologise. That was presumptuous of me and now I look stupid...

No worries. It happens. Just pretty edgy today

If that's what you want then I think your wishes are even further from the no-voting majority than mine...

Possibly. I'm sure we'll find out in October.

O'Morris

passive wrote: »

If that's what you want then I think your wishes are even further from the no-voting majority than mine...

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I think very few Irish people have any real political allegiance to the EU and so once our economic interest in being part of the common market is secured, I don't see any real desire among Irish people to see us being more deeply involved in the EU. I think if you were to give people three choices on Ireland's future relationship with Europe

1. Leave the EU completely
2. Stay in the EU and continue down the path we're on
3. Retain our independence but stay in the common market with the EU and leave other European countries free to develop closer political ties among themselves.

I'm fairly sure that most people would opt for uimhir a tri.

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

3. Retain our independence but stay in the common market with the EU and leave other European countries free to develop closer political ties among themselves.

EFTA? No thanks.

ShooterSF

djpbarry wrote: »

EFTA? No thanks.

To each their own. Though I would like some Yes voters to recognise that alternatives (even if they don't like them) have been suggested and quit this "No voters are happy to reject the treaty but don't bother to offer an alternative" line.

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote: »

EFTA? No thanks.

Why not?

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

Why not?

Because while we would be part of a free trade area, we would have little or no say on it's mechanisms. We would have access to EU markets, but we would have no voice at the table when changes to said market (which is hugely important to our economy) are proposed. I see little sense in placing ourselves in such a position.

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote: »

Because while we would be part of a free trade area, we would have little or no say on it's mechanisms. We would have access to EU markets, but we would have no voice at the table when changes to said market (which is hugely important to our economy) are proposed. I see little sense in placing ourselves in such a position.

We could work out a deal whereby we could continue having a say on the EU's trade policy. In another five or six years we're expected to be net contributers to the EU. EFTA members don't have to contribute financially to the EU but we could offer to continue paying them in return for a say on the workings of the single market. We could also make a commitment not to lower our corporation tax any further.

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

We could work out a deal whereby we could continue having a say on the EU's trade policy.

Which current EFTA members are so privileged?

O'Morris wrote: »

In another five or six years we're expected to be net contributers to the EU.

I doubt it.

O'Morris wrote: »

EFTA members don't have to contribute financially to the EU...

Nor do they receive funding.

cooperguy

We could work out a deal whereby we could continue having a say on the EU's trade policy. In another five or six years we're expected to be net contributers to the EU. EFTA members don't have to contribute financially to the EU but we could offer to continue paying them in return for a say on the workings of the single market. We could also make a commitment not to lower our corporation tax any further.

Because they would be willing to help us out? Why exactly would they want to do that! You would probably hear the laughing in Brussels from here when that motion was put forward.

molloyjh

O'Morris wrote: »

We could work out a deal whereby we could continue having a say on the EU's trade policy. In another five or six years we're expected to be net contributers to the EU. EFTA members don't have to contribute financially to the EU but we could offer to continue paying them in return for a say on the workings of the single market. We could also make a commitment not to lower our corporation tax any further.

So let me get this straight, you reckon that now that the prospect of us being net contributers is looming somewhere on the horizon that we should take a step away from the EU? We should take and take while we can and scarper when asked to give something back? All I can say is thank God that other member states don't have that attitude. Can you imagine the state of this country if they all did!?

As for the "stay where we are" option all I can really say to that is that I cannot understand why people would want to stick with an overly-bueracratic and inefficient organisation. after all the Lisbon Treaty wasn't really a new departure for the EU, but more of a modification to the internal workings of it. It wasn't taking us in a "new direction", it was making sure the EU was best equipped to continue down the current one.

Personally I want a reduced Commission. We are not represented nationally on it and there are too many Commissioners as it stands. Its only going to get worse if/when we admit more members. From the looks of it thats about the only thing that could change for the next referendum. And its silly pandering in my view that could backfire on them in the future. The idea that such a small nation can, in essence, hold the entire EU to ransom defeats the purpose of the union but will be remembered.

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote:

Which current EFTA members are so privileged?

We wouldn't be a normal EFTA member. We would be former member of the EU and we would be paying them for the privilege of influencing the EU's trade policy. We'd also make a commitment not to lower our corporation tax.

djpbarry wrote:

I doubt it.

If not in five or six years then ten or eleven years.

djpbarry wrote:

Nor do they receive funding.

The money we would be sending to the EU would be the difference between the amount of money we would normally receive from them compared with the money we would contribute. Once we become net contributors we'll then be able to cover for our own funding.

cooperguy wrote:

Because they would be willing to help us out? Why exactly would they want to do that!

Because they would no longer have to worry about the Irish veto holding up progress in Europe. Ireland is an insignificant, backward country that has nothing to offer Europe. It be greatly to Europe's advantage if were outside of the political union. Just look at all the trouble we've caused over the last few months because our ignorant, unsophisticated electorate had the arrogance to behave like the French and the Dutch. We're not fit to be in the company of these great nations.

There isn't much change of them getting rid of us though because continued access to their markets is so important for our economy. The only possible solution would be for them to work out a deal where we can leave the political union but we can remain in the single market. That way everyone benefits. All happy, smily faces all round.

molloyjh wrote:

So let me get this straight, you reckon that now that the prospect of us being net contributers is looming somewhere on the horizon that we should take a step away from the EU?

Not at all, I think we should we continue to contribute financially to the EU.

molloyjh wrote:

We should take and take while we can and scarper when asked to give something back?

Absolutely not. We should continue to contribute to the EU until every cent we got from them is paid back.

molloyjh wrote:

All I can say is thank God that other member states don't have that attitude. Can you imagine the state of this country if they all did!?

If all other European countries abandonded the idea of greater political integration and instead agreed to continue functioning as a single market? Doesn't sound too bad to me.

molloyjh wrote:

The idea that such a small nation can, in essence, hold the entire EU to ransom defeats the purpose of the union

It's going to keep happening though and no country is going to sacrifice their veto. Maybe the EU is just too big and it would be a good thing if there weren't so many small countries acting as though they're the equal of the French or the Germans? If a country wants to leave the EU but wants to remain part of the single market then I think that it would be good for Europe to allow that.

molloyjh wrote:

but will be remembered.

No it won't. Europeans have short memories. Ask the Germans.

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

Wow. We have got to have the greatest negotiators in the world! Really won me over with the new improved treaty!

What did they get changed? Reassurances that we wont be having abortions while serving our conscription in the army. Well fukin done FF, things that even you admitted have NOTHING to do with Lisbon. What a pack of idiots. Really.

What next? Will they be making Coir members of the civil service so they can run the country? Considering they've an equal level of intellect!

Will be volunteering myself to any other no campaigners after this shambles. Temper is boiling.

Well, a new deal was hardly going to address the concerns of people who'd rather be in EFTA than the EU.

realistically,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, a new deal was hardly going to address the concerns of people who'd rather be in EFTA than the EU.

realistically,
Scofflaw

Rather the concerns of Coir. Just to clarify EFTA would not be my preferenc, it would be prefered to the current treaty though. Staying still, going backwards because Europe has told is it's too bloated and unworkable, THEN a two tier EU are my preferences.

sink

ShooterSF wrote: »

Rather the concerns of Coir. Just to clarify EFTA would not be my preferenc, it would be prefered to the current treaty though. Staying still, going backwards because Europe has told is it's too bloated and unworkable, THEN a two tier EU are my preferences.

I know you know that that would sideline Ireland on all the major policy decisions and hurt our international influence immensely and you don't care. I just can't see your rationale it makes absolutely no sense to me and I don't suppose I ever will.

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

Rather the concerns of Coir. Just to clarify EFTA would not be my preferenc, it would be prefered to the current treaty though. Staying still, going backwards because Europe has told is it's too bloated and unworkable, THEN a two tier EU are my preferences.

Hmm. "Europe has been told is it's too bloated and unworkable". That's a very heavy interpretation of the No vote to be what you meant by yours. I don't think the general No vote could be interpreted as meaning that at all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

We wouldn't be a normal EFTA member. We would be former member of the EU and we would be paying them for the privilege of influencing the EU's trade policy.

That's just pure speculation. How much will we pay for this privilege?

O'Morris wrote: »

If not in five or six years then ten or eleven years.

More speculation.

O'Morris wrote: »

The only possible solution would be for them to work out a deal where we can leave the political union but we can remain in the single market. That way everyone benefits.

How does Ireland benefit in such a situation? For starters, we lose political influence and we lose funding.

ShooterSF

sink wrote: »

I know you know that that would sideline Ireland on all the major policy decisions and hurt our international influence immensely and you don't care. I just can't see your rationale it makes absolutely no sense to me and I don't suppose I ever will.

I don't think you will. As I said I'd prefer status Quo. Just my views on the issue and the reason I try and drag myself out of here every so often because with different core views the debate is rather pointless.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. "Europe has been told is it's too bloated and unworkable". That's a very heavy interpretation of the No vote to be what you meant by yours. I don't think the general No vote could be interpreted as meaning that at all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I don't really get what you're saying there. Unless you mean that most No voters voted for other reasons than myself. Which is quite possible.

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

I don't really get what you're saying there. Unless you mean that most No voters voted for other reasons than myself. Which is quite possible.

You have hit the nail squarely on the head. There's undoubtedly a core No vote that believes that the EU has gone far beyond acceptable limits*, particularly in the degree of its political integration, but I don't think their feelings are shared by the Irish electorate at large.

*I presume that to be what is really meant by "bloated and unworkable", since we're talking about a civil service that's a good bit smaller than the HSE.

cordially,
Scofflaw

cooperguy

Debate on Matt Cooper, Today FM now

Mal-Adjusted

oscarBravo wrote: »

Which rules of the existing EU prevent the member states from agreeing treaties among themselves? This is a much more compelling argument that "I'd imagine it's impossible."

well, since the Lisbon treaty is ABOUT the E.U. and the way it is structured, it actually would be impossible to do it OUTSIDE the E.U. as you are insinuating.

oscarBravo

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

well, since the Lisbon treaty is ABOUT the E.U. and the way it is structured, it actually would be impossible to do it OUTSIDE the E.U. as you are insinuating.

So you believe that one small country is and should be in a position to call the shots over the direction of Europe in perpetuity, and that the other 26 member states will cheerfully sit back and accept that situation?

I have a bridge you may be interested in.

Mal-Adjusted

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you believe that one small country is and should be in a position to call the shots over the direction of Europe in perpetuity, and that the other 26 member states will cheerfully sit back and accept that situation?

I have a bridge you may be interested in.

who says i believe that? im simply stating that the Lisbon treaty is about the restructure of the EU. why withdraw from the E.U. to ratify it? that is what you are implying. do not put words in my mouth. it is impossible for you to determine my position over the treaty in my above statement (im undecided by the way):D

oscarBravo

I suggest you re-read the post of mine you originally replied to. I have no idea where you're trying to take this.

Mal-Adjusted

oscarBravo wrote: »

I suggest you re-read the post of mine you originally replied to. I have no idea where you're trying to take this.

er...not trying to take it aywhere. i replied to your question. if you can understand, it's not my problem:rolleyes:

sink

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

er...not trying to take it aywhere. i replied to your question. if you can understand, it's not my problem:rolleyes:

I'm not sure what you are trying to say either. The Lisbon treaty introduces new areas of co-operation in energy the environment and sport. It also states quiet categorically that a common defence is a main goal of the CFSP. Now if Ireland blocks these in perpetuity and the other 26 countries want to go ahead what legally is stopping them from setting up a new organisation called United Europe and giving it these powers while excluding Ireland? The only thing stopping them is politics and that will not last forever. This new organisation could even take on some of the roles the EU currently fills if the other member states want to go around the stubborn Irish.

Scofflaw

I think the point Mal-Adjusted is making is fairly reasonable.

well, since the Lisbon treaty is ABOUT the E.U. and the way it is structured, it actually would be impossible to do it OUTSIDE the E.U. as you are insinuating.

He's only saying that since Lisbon is a treaty of institutional reform for the EU, doing it outside the EU makes no sense.

Which is true, but misses the point that OB is making - that creating another organisation which essentially takes over from the EU, but whose founding treaty incorporates Lisbon, but which has only 26 members, is legally possible (if remarkably unlikely for several reasons).

cordially,
Scofflaw