Why I'm thinking of voting yes this time to Lisbon

djpbarry

Elmo wrote: »

Why vote no again?

1. After asking us to vote again for nice the European leaders promised to take Europe to the people, to let European citizen know what they are doing in Europe. This has not been provided, and no setting up a website does not go far enough.
2. The EU Commissioners are not elected yet all of them have political views regardless of nationality. Charlie McCreevy is a FF Commissioner and is bais in his position. It was never about losing a Commissioner for me it was about a democratically elected commissioner. Each EU country could have a rotating commissioners with elected junior commissioners coming from the EU countries with out Commissioners.
3. The laxed regulation on Banking and other sectors of society have been cause by the moving of the EU from Social Democrats to Neo-Liberalist. Lobbist now have more power in Europe then the people.

So you're voting on what the treaty does not contain, rather than what it does? The treaty does not contain any provisions to provide me with my own private jet - is that a valid reason for voting no?

nesf

O'Morris wrote: »

Of course. The Lisbon Treaty is worse than the status quo so it's a hypothetical question but if it was a better deal for Ireland than the status quo then the Lisbon treaty would be the preferred option.

I disagree, shockingly.

democrates

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't intend to make personal attacks, unless you see criticism of your logic as personal.

Fair enough.

brianthebard wrote: »

Do you believe that Lisbon is related to the economic climate now? If so why did you vote no the last time?
Did you think at the last referendum that the treaty would have an impact on the economy? If so why did you vote no?
What do you think will be gained from voting yes, economically speaking?
What do you think will happen if you vote no, that was different to the last time you voted?

The first time around we were still doing quite well economically so it seemed to me that we were placed to deal with choppy waters both politically and economically in the event of a no.

Since then the global financial system has gone into meltdown, we've had a credit crunch, banks collapsing or being nationalised, businesses laying off workers en masse, and the damage to the real economy is set to intensify. The waters have gone from choppy to heaving and our boat is losing bouyancy.

It's one thing to take a hit in good times and cut back on luxuries, quite another when the hit means people losing their jobs and homes and the upcoming generation facing a bleak future given cutbacks in educaton versus the reducing oppertunities in the global jobs market.

brianthebard wrote: »

eta: The possibility of leaving the EU has been covered so many times on these boards already, I'm sure you know by now that its not possible under current EU legislation. So that reason, if nothing else is a non starter here.

I wouldn't be so sure, there's no court of appeal for constructive dismissal from the EU. From the Dioxin problem last year to ECB support to existing QMV areas, there are lots of ways that the decisions of the people who want Lisbon can have a real impact on Irish livelihoods, and we're no longer in a good position to brazen it out.

After the first no the EU mandarins took the position that one country cannot hold back 'progress' and predictably they put the ball firmly back in our court. Now that the 'uncertainty=greater hardship' weapon has become so powerful they'd easily evade a popular backlash accross the other EU members if a new treaty were proposed that gives Ireland a special relationship outside the core and allows the rest to proceed with certainty.

Kama

Inflammable means flammable?

turgon

Elmo wrote: »

1. After asking us to vote again for nice the European leaders promised to take Europe to the people, to let European citizen know what they are doing in Europe. This has not been provided, and no setting up a website does not go far enough.

What so Barrosa should go knocking on your doors asking what you want. If you want to get involved you can do it yourself. They've even made it easier by having MEP's represent you, what do you think they're for?

Elmo wrote: »

2. The EU Commissioners are not elected yet all of them have political views regardless of nationality. Charlie McCreevy is a FF Commissioner and is bais in his position.

He is? How?

Elmo wrote: »

It was never about losing a Commissioner for me it was about a democratically elected commissioner.

And who then gets the lucky choice of being commissioner for green issues?? Who gets to be commissioner for finance? All commissioners are not equal, and the system now is about as good as it could be without a large scale overhaul.

Elmo wrote: »

Each EU country could have a rotating commissioners with elected junior commissioners coming from the EU countries with out Commissioners.

Jobs for the boys in other words. You dont really grasp that commissioners dont act in the national interest. But I suppose you just thinke theres more "bais" here.

Scofflaw

O'Morris wrote: »

I would be absolutely amazed if that estimate were even anywhere near the case! Civil servants spend a couple of weeks on an interdepartmental internal report...Lisbon involved teams from 27 countries. The draft version took 16 months for a 105-member team, and that was the position in 2003, before the real negotiations started.

But the negotiations themselves were not carried out by the civil servants. The governments did the negotiation of the treaty.

What on earth gives you that idea? Treaties are no more negotiated by governments (in the sense of the Cabinets sitting down together) than contracts between companies are negotiated by the CEOs.

O'Morris wrote: »

I could answer them as well. The question is whether the average man on the street would be able to answer them. And more importantly, will he be encouraged to ask himself those questions by the yes side during the course of the referendum campaign? And will he be given a straight answer if he does ask them? Based on the pro-treaty side's reaction after the last referendum I have a feeling the answer is yes to the former and no to the latter.

This is why I think it's important that our own government and the other EU governments make public what they intend to do in the short-term if we don't vote the right way. We can't afford to just settle for speculation on the likely consequences of our decision. If the EU are planning to do bad things to us if we vote no then we should be told about it in advance. The yes side would benefit much more from this than the other side would as they would then have something more substantial to back up the scare-mongering.

Well, I'd like to see a plan B, certainly. On the other hand, I don't want to see a plan B that contains some kind of downgrading of Ireland's EU status, and there are senses in which I don't even want the other governments to think it fully through.

O'Morris wrote: »

What about the economic argument though? Aside from the political question of whether the Lisbon Treaty is good for Ireland, don't you see the economic benefit for all of the EU of having the uncertainty removed from the debate? Wouldn't clarification about the EU's short-term future in the event of a second no vote reassure the markets that the EU is not likely to be collapse at the end of 2009?

It's true that the lack of a clear plan B sends the message that the EU will be effectively paralysed in the event of a second No. Unfortunately, that may well be a truthful message.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Elmo

djpbarry wrote: »

So you're voting on what the treaty does not contain, rather than what it does? The treaty does not contain any provisions to provide me with my own private jet - is that a valid reason for voting no?

I think that it should containing these things and if it doesn't then I am voting no. I don't think that is hard to understand that I fundamentally disagree with the treaty.

What so Barrosa should go knocking on your doors asking what you want. If you want to get involved you can do it yourself. They've even made it easier by having MEP's represent you, what do you think they're for?

No I am not. I am suggesting that the European Union makes an effort to be more integrated in society. It seems to be very far removed for most people which cause disinterest with in the general electorate. There are so many things that the EU deals with, I mean I have told people that EU has rules over broadcasting and they act surprised.

He is? How?

He is a member of FF. Went for election as an FF TD. Minister for Finance as an FF TD and cabinet minister. Given the commissioners position by his good friend Bertie (FF Leader). I don't remember the commissioners positions being posted on publicjobs.ie.

And who then gets the lucky choice of being commissioner for green issues?? Who gets to be commissioner for finance? All commissioners are not equal, and the system now is about as good as it could be without a large scale overhaul.

The commission would have 14 commissioners from 14 countries (rotating every 5 years). One elected commissioner would be elected by the MEPs to become president who would issue portfolios to each of the elected commissioners and the other elected junior commissioners.

Jobs for the boys in other words. You dont really grasp that commissioners dont act in the national interest. But I suppose you just thinke theres more "bais" here.

The commissioners all are just jobs for the boys. McCreey, Flynn, Mandleson, Redding etc all just elites. No the don't act in the national interest I don't expect them too but I would hope that ministers don't just act in their counties interests. Most commissioners are too busy worrying about their 2 houses, they might at least act in the interest of Europe not just themselves.

I just think Europe is distant from the EU and distracted with elitism.

Also their is no reason why the government could give their commissioners seat to a person of another nationality if they felt they where right for the job.

Scofflaw

Elmo wrote: »

Also their is no reason why the government could give their commissioners seat to a person of another nationality if they felt they where right for the job.

No, that actually can't be done. I won't comment on the other points because the way you've put them I don't think they're amenable to rational debate.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

Elmo wrote: »

I don't think that is hard to understand that I fundamentally disagree with the treaty.

Well, considering you have not actually referred to anything contained in the treaty...

Red Hand

Rb wrote: »

Personally, they need not bother revising the text even minutely, I will be voting no irregardless of what is put before us and to be quite honest, no longer care of any consequence the Yes side have tried to scare us with.

I wonder did such people as the above poster ever read it in the first place?;)

dresden8

Daroxtar wrote: »

i voted yes before and i'll do it again for the same reasons-
europe has money and we need it.
declan ganley is an economic hitman.
in 30 years i'd like to have the european army protecting me from russia, china and the us.

Correct me if I'm wrong but our "Yes" voting friends have told us that Lisbon will not lead to a European army.

If this poster had professed to being a "No" voter our pro-friends would have been jumping all over his ass. But obviously since he's a "Yes" we can let it pass.

It does raise interesting questions though for the future.

"Yes" voters are voting "Yes" for the wrong reason and if the result is "Yes" obviously the government will hold a consultative process to discover why voters voted for the wrong reason and will call the result to be "Wrong".

Next they will look for concessions from Europe that there will be no European army and re-run the referendum for the third time.

Or not.

Obviously.

Puzzledly,

Dresden

sink

dresden8 wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but our "Yes" voting friends have told us that Lisbon will not lead to a European army.

If this poster had professed to being a "No" voter our pro-friends would have been jumping all over his ass. But obviously since he's a "Yes" we can let it pass.

It does raise interesting questions though for the future.

"Yes" voters are voting "Yes" for the wrong reason and if the result is "Yes" obviously the government will hold a consultative process to discover why voters voted for the wrong reason and will call the result to be "Wrong".

Next they will look for concessions from Europe that there will be no European army and re-run the referendum for the third time.

Or not.

Obviously.

Puzzledly,

Dresden

Read what he said again. He would like in 30 years there to be a European army. He did not in anyway suggest that he thinks Lisbon is any great step in that direction. Are we supposed to start criticizing what people would like to happen 3 decades in the future in the context of the Lisbon treaty debate? Although he could have elaborated as to what exactly he meant by EU monies.

Hitman Actual

sink wrote: »

Although he could have elaborated as to what exactly he meant by EU monies.

...and about Ganley being an "economic hitman". It was one of those posts where it was damn near impossible to know how to reply. Easier to ignore.

dresden8

sink wrote: »

Read what he said again. He would like in 30 years there to be a European army. He did not in anyway suggest that he thinks Lisbon is any great step in that direction. Are we supposed to start criticizing what people would like to happen 3 decades in the future in the context of the Lisbon treaty debate? Although he could have elaborated as to what exactly he meant by EU monies.

Ooh lovely sidestep.

I think if you re-read what he says he directly links a "Yes" vote to a European army. Short-term or Long-Term is irrelevant

To cut out the irrelevant parts I'll do a little judicious editing

i voted yes before and i'll do it again for the same reasons-

in 30 years i'd like to have the european army protecting me from russia, china and the us.

Will this European army require conscription to provide the manpower to take on Russia, China and the US? I would imagine so. There is quite a lot of them.

If he was a stupid "No" voter our "Yes" voters would be jumping all over him as a stupid, misinformed "No" voter who obviously couldn't see how handsome the emperor's new clothes were.

How many re-runs of this feckin' referendum are we gonna have because of our stupid mis-informed voters?

The silence on his obvious mistake is deafening.

I despair.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

Ooh lovely sidestep.

I think if you re-read what he says he directly links a "Yes" vote to a European army. Short-term or Long-Term is irrelevant

To cut out the irrelevant parts I'll do a little judicious editing



Will this European army require conscription to provide the manpower to take on Russia, China and the US? I would imagine so. There is quite a lot of them.

If he was a stupid "No" voter our "Yes" voters would be jumping all over him as a stupid, misinformed "No" voter who obviously couldn't see how handsome the emperor's new clothes were.

How many re-runs of this feckin' referendum are we gonna have because of our stupid mis-informed voters?

The silence on his obvious mistake is deafening.

I despair.

Oh come on - enough fake despair. He's entitled to want there to be an EU army in 30 years time if he likes. You're the one jumping from what a poster wants to the idea that there will be an EU army (because someone on boards.ie says so!) and that this will in turn require conscription (because...well, because, even though current armed forces don't apparently require it).

Only one of you is making claims about what will happen as opposed to what you'd like to see happen - and it's not him.

regards,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

Oh come on - enough fake despair. He's entitled to want there to be an EU army in 30 years time if he likes. You're the one jumping from what a poster wants to the idea that there will be an EU army (because someone on boards.ie says so!) and that this will in turn require conscription (because...well, because, even though current armed forces don't apparently require it).

Only one of you is making claims about what will happen as opposed to what you'd like to see happen - and it's not him.

regards,
Scofflaw

No. Still doesn't cut it.

Jump on him for asserting that Lisbon will lead to a European army please.

He states quite plainly that he will vote yes to Lisbon because in 30 years it will lead to a European army.

Please ridicule him for how mis-informed he is and demand a re-run if the next answer is yes.

Just for equity. Or is that evenness? Anyway, you know the word.

K-9

dresden8 wrote: »

No. Still doesn't cut it.

Jump on him for asserting that Lisbon will lead to a European army please.

He states quite plainly that he will vote yes to Lisbon because in 30 years it will lead to a European army.

Please ridicule him for how mis-informed he is and demand a re-run if the next answer is yes.

Just for equity. Or is that evenness? Anyway, you know the word.

Somethings aren't worth bothering replying to. I'm sure you've seen the same on the No side. Best ignoring them, don't you think?

dresden8

K-9 wrote: »

Somethings aren't worth bothering replying to. I'm sure you've seen the same on the No side. Best ignoring them, don't you think

Except of course on the no side they don't usually get ignored.

It's all "what a fool you are".

And such.

Just can't help pointing out inconsistencies though.

Gotta love 'em.

K-9

dresden8 wrote: »

Except of course on the no side they don't usually get ignored.

It's all "what a fool you are".

And such.

Just can't help pointing out inconsistencies though.

Gotta love 'em.

I've ignored stupid No side posts. There is no need to respond, by answering you are actually are giving them credence.

I'm sure you've done it yourself.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

No. Still doesn't cut it.

Jump on him for asserting that Lisbon will lead to a European army please.

He states quite plainly that he will vote yes to Lisbon because in 30 years it will lead to a European army.

Please ridicule him for how mis-informed he is and demand a re-run if the next answer is yes.

Just for equity. Or is that evenness? Anyway, you know the word.

Hmm. You appear to be having some kind of issue here. I'm loath to take the obvious course, but much more of this will leave me little choice. I know what you're saying, and you've said it.

warningly,
Scofflaw

Rb

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

I wonder did such people as the above poster ever read it in the first place?;)

Oh look, a Yes voter trying to be condescending, how typical :rolleyes:

Rb

oscarBravo wrote: »

I couldn't have dreamed up a more perfect example of what's wrong with democracy.

Democracy? In the EU? Are you mad? We wouldn't still be discussing Lisbon if there were democracy in the EU.

Oh and please don't retort with the usual "5 million people choosing the course of blah blah" Yes voter crap as it's quite tiresome and we both know it's a pathetically weak argument.

The events following the announcement of the result of our referendum has turned me from being Pro-EU/Anti-Lisbon to leaning more towards Anti-EU.

The last thing I will vote in favour for is giving more power to those greedy, power mad bastards who have denied our democratically decided result from the get go.

Scofflaw

Rb wrote: »

Oh look, a Yes voter trying to be condescending, how typical :rolleyes:

I'd like to thank democrates for his original post, which I thought described an interesting and rational response to the change in situation Ireland has experienced in the last six months. It's a pity that it seems to have provoked quite such an outbreak of moaning - so much so that the thread has to either go up quickly, or be closed.

For reasons already given, and which have been, alas, amply justified even in the relatively short lifespan of this thread, I regret - as a poster - that the most reasonable No proponents here are thinking of changing their votes. I also regret that, rather than us being able to convince them of the (relative) merits of the Treaty, it is a change in our country's ability to afford the consequences that has provoked their reconsideration - but that's just wounded pride, I suspect!

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

dresden8 wrote: »

If this poster had professed to being a "No" voter our pro-friends would have been jumping all over his ass. But obviously since he's a "Yes" we can let it pass.

You can be quite sure that the post in question was noticed. Personally, I felt it was too daft to be worth replying to. (Un)fortunately, you felt otherwise...

Rb wrote: »

Democracy? In the EU? Are you mad? We wouldn't still be discussing Lisbon if there were democracy in the EU.

Yes, referenda are so despicably undemocratic, aren't they?

Rb wrote: »

The last thing I will vote in favour for is giving more power to those greedy, power mad bastards...

Fortunately, you’re not being asked to vote on any such thing.

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. You appear to be having some kind of issue here. I'm loath to take the obvious course, but much more of this will leave me little choice. I know what you're saying, and you've said it.

warningly,
Scofflaw

Warningly?

democrates

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'd like to thank democrates for his original post, which I thought described an interesting and rational response to the change in situation Ireland has experienced in the last six months. It's a pity that it seems to have provoked quite such an outbreak of moaning - so much so that the thread has to either go up quickly, or be closed.

For reasons already given, and which have been, alas, amply justified even in the relatively short lifespan of this thread, I regret - as a poster - that the most reasonable No proponents here are thinking of changing their votes. I also regret that, rather than us being able to convince them of the (relative) merits of the Treaty, it is a change in our country's ability to afford the consequences that has provoked their reconsideration - but that's just wounded pride, I suspect!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thanks. If it's any consolation I've never had a black and white view of the EU or the Lisbon Treaty, it's an "on balance" assessment and yes there's little point in re-hashing what we discussed first time around.

I think 2 will pass and it will be up to the people of other member states to get their acts together if they can be bothered. In the current climate of recession and risk of depression I don't think a no from us would stop the EU freight train anyway, just that we don't know what plan B is yet.

cozmik

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'd like to thank democrates for his original post, which I thought described an interesting and rational response to the change in situation Ireland has experienced in the last six months.

This is your idea of "rational" discussion? lol

we now have the gun of economic crisis to our heads,

EU elite have no plan B except the promise of chaos and uncertainty.

we can easily (and to a degree justifiably) be blamed for the extent of recessions in member states

We alone would pay the price for disobediance

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055478997

This is a clear attempt to scare us into voting yes.

brianthebard

democrates wrote: »

I think 2 will pass and it will be up to the people of other member states to get their acts together if they can be bothered. In the current climate of recession and risk of depression I don't think a no from us would stop the EU freight train anyway, just that we don't know what plan B is yet.

Do you vote for FF at every election because you don't know what the opposition might do in power?

turgon

brianthebard wrote: »

Do you vote for FF at every election because you don't know what the opposition might do in power?

That doesnt make sense, your insinuating that democrates decisions are based on keeping "the status quo." If hes going to vote for Lisbon, hes voting for change not the current system. You dont make sense.

O'Morris

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, I'd like to see a plan B, certainly. On the other hand, I don't want to see a plan B that contains some kind of downgrading of Ireland's EU status, and there are senses in which I don't even want the other governments to think it fully through.

But they're going to have to fully think it through if we vote no anyway. It's far better that they think it through in advance of the referendum rather than afterwards. If they are planning to punish us by downgrading our status then wouldn't you rather know about that now, when we're in a position to do something to prevent it happening, rather than after the referendum when we would be almost powerless to do anything about it? A declaration from the EUers that they will punish us by downgrading our status if we vote the wrong way would be almost certain to result in a yes vote in the next referendum

Scofflaw wrote:

It's true that the lack of a clear plan B sends the message that the EU will be effectively paralysed in the event of a second No. Unfortunately, that may well be a truthful message.

I think you know that's nowhere close to being a truthful message. Unless you can explain why a no vote in November would be likely to paralyse the EU?

Scofflaw wrote:

I also regret that, rather than us being able to convince them of the (relative) merits of the Treaty, it is a change in our country's ability to afford the consequences that has provoked their reconsideration

We don't yet know what the consequences will be so we can't say for sure whether we'll be able to afford them. In the absence of a statement of intent from the governments we'll just have to settle for speculation and scaremongering.

Scofflaw wrote:

but that's just wounded pride, I suspect!

It's not wounded pride. It's fear and ignorance. I'm voting yes in the second referendum out of fear and ignorance of the consequences for our economy.