Why voting no?

turgon

conchubhar1 wrote: »

my question - why the hell were these not part of the eu since nice?, maastricht? or since the begginning?

Because the EU didnt just appear one day, believe it or not, it actually evolved.

Mario007

Zuiderzee wrote: »

I hope to get something better.

What I would like to see in an EU document is:

A clearer, fairer and more democratic treaty, that is more understandable.

A treaty voted for by all citizens of the EU If the majority of the 450m citizens say yes, then so be it.

Standardized workers rights such as a minimum wage per state.

No extradition without habeus corpus to be enshrined in law.

No reference to defence or EDA, if other states want to be in a military grouping, thats their business.
As an aside I remember in 97 we were assured we would not be in the PfP without a referendum.
In 99 we were signed up to it - without a referendum.

Directly Elected commissioners, i.e no more failures like the Pee Flynns, McCreeveys, or in the future Eoin Ryan/Harney/Ahearns dumped in Europe.

I also think we should have a say in selection of the ministers sent to EU for council, these need not be politicians.
I dont vote for councillers to select my TDs.

More openess and accountability - e.g. expenses for MEPs to be available, steering comittees to be known - no oil execs dealing with environmental issues for example.

I want to see the circus that is Strasbourg/Brussel switch change.
Pick one parliament building, and stick to it.

More power to the EU parliament in terms of setting legislation, less to the council of ministers.

A trans european agency dealing with maritime / aviation safety and employment regulation to stop exploitation and improve safety.

Give me those, I'll vote yes.

i love the way you advocate voting directly for everything in order for you democracy to be achieved, yet you say the treaty is undemocratic when it gives the QMV which is much more democratic then the veto mechanism

conchubhar1

turgon wrote: »

Because the EU didnt just appear one day, believe it or not, it actually evolved.

it took - 60 years to get to a fairer eu that didnt waste time and had a charter on human rights
a parliment with right to make a majority (95%) of laws


ah.....


not qouting my point of these not being implemented in the several other treaties and then saying it innolved

nice

turgon

Mario007 wrote: »

i love the way you advocate voting directly for everything in order for you democracy to be achieved, yet you say the treaty is undemocratic when it gives the QMV which is much more democratic then the veto mechanism

I think the underlying message is that he isnt in fact advocating No for democracy (or anything else) but rather advocating No simply for the sake of it.

conchubhar1

of course, people cant say no for a good reason

they must have an anti eu or just be a bad person agenda

turgon

conchubhar1 wrote: »

of course, people cant say no for a good reason

they must have an anti eu or just be a bad person agenda

Em they actually can. But given this is the 97th post, and that roughly 49 of those were by No-siders (half) and tha we have had only 2 or 3 relevant reasons max for voting No, I think the probability is that "they must have an anti eu or just be a bad person agenda."

the lomax

conchubhar1 wrote: »

it is not a us against them

it is a case of should an area we strongly disagree on come up, it can be passed and we can vote against us but if 55% of pop and 65% of member states etc or whatever agree it is passed


i know it is not in areas of key importance like defence and tax - but still

yes every state looses it - it is not a physical thing.

but other states have greater voting weight, others the same and a few less (few?).

the weighting is tipped in the favour of smaller nations, and that is great, but ireland has still along with other smaller states a smaller say

So does that mean that you prefer the present situation where Ireland and 25 other member states could strongly favour acting in a particular area but be prevented from doing so by 1 nations veto?

Forcefield

Well, I'm still none the wiser.
1: I want to vote No specifically because I don't like the way the government are making us vote again as it didn't suit them first time around. Its all a bit undemocratic.

B: I want to vote Yes because I think Europe is probably the only way out of this recession in terms of loans and assistance.

4: But I know that by increasing our dependency on Europe we are aiding our Urban dwellers and taking more and more away from our country folk.

O - what to do

K-9

Forcefield wrote: »

Well, I'm still none the wiser.
1: I want to vote No specifically because I don't like the way the government are making us vote again as it didn't suit them first time around. Its all a bit undemocratic.

Have they addressed the reasons you voted No?

banthebrick

thecraichead wrote: »

I am sick of the arguement that putting the question to the public again is undemocratic.

I think the MOST democratic thing to do is to put it to the public again. The treaty has not been ratified as a result of the no vote. Has public sentiment changed in the meantime? Do the majority of the public now wish to pass the treaty given the guarantees? Polls suggest that it will be closer this time.

The UNDEMOCRATIC want to avoid this referendum for fear that they will no longer hold the majority. They do not wish to have the current will of the majority implemented. If people do not want the treaty passed, they should vote no. I may even be a no voter myself. in any case, the will of the majority and democracy will prevail.

So if public sentiment changes a couple of months after a Yes vote will there be another vote??? i think not.

i'm still on the fence for this one, nobody really seems to know what the final result of a yes will be, even our politicians who are telling us to vote yes.

It could be a case that the nuts and bolts of the treaty will only become apparent once European courts have there way with it, and stamp their interpratation all over it.

Forcefield

Have they addressed the reasons you voted No?

No but nor have they addresses the Yes in my view

conchubhar1

the lomax wrote: »

So does that mean that you prefer the present situation where Ireland and 25 other member states could strongly favour acting in a particular area but be prevented from doing so by 1 nations veto?

yes - you have to think why that nation would vote no

as stated before ireland only used the veto once - we must have really been against that proposal.


countries wouldnt veto if the proposal was good for all of the eu

the lomax

conchubhar1 wrote: »

yes - you have to think why that nation would vote no

as stated before ireland only used the veto once - we must have really been against that proposal.


countries wouldnt veto if the proposal was good for all of the eu

They already did consider that there are issues that nations feel strongly enough about that they wont compromise and thats why areas like tax and defence still retain the veto.
And governments use veto powers to gain leveage. eg if you dont support proposal A we will veto proposal B and their vetos have nothing to do with how strongly they oppose these issues.

turgon

Forcefield wrote: »

1: I want to vote No specifically because I don't like the way the government are making us vote again as it didn't suit them first time around. Its all a bit undemocratic.

Voting No will not change that....

Forcefield wrote: »

B: I want to vote Yes because I think Europe is probably the only way out of this recession in terms of loans and assistance.

....Voting yes might help this.

Forcefield wrote: »

4: But I know that by increasing our dependency on Europe we are aiding our Urban dwellers and taking more and more away from our country folk.

Common Agri Policy is probably the reason most "country folk" (farmers) havent upped and gone to the cities.

Forcefield wrote: »

O - what to do

Judge the Treaty on it merits, and vote on issues that are related to the Treaty, issues that the Treaty will effect.

For example, your ticked that the government is asking you to vote again but voting No will not change this. So it would in effect be a spoiled ballot.

cooperguy

Forcefield wrote: »

Have they addressed the reasons you voted No?

No but nor have they addresses the Yes in my view

What were the reasons you voted no?

Forcefield

cooperguy wrote: »

What were the reasons you voted no?

Seems to be a misunderstanding here.
I wasn't here for the last vote, but still not sure what side of the fence to get off is all.

Forcefield

turgon wrote: »

Voting No will not change that....

....Voting yes might help this.

Common Agri Policy is probably the reason most "country folk" (farmers) havent upped and gone to the cities.

A lot of farmers I know have been forced off the land and into factory jobs and other jobs that they are not happy about. For me, I have land that is not large enough to live off. Even if I wanted to make a living off it i would find it hard, nay impossible!
Whereas before families survived on this.
Also in a lot of rural areas, there is a common threat of vast acres of land being turned into national parkland, thus further forcing more people off the land and indeed squeezing more people into densley populated areas. A common European style of life as opposed to a more traditional style of living.

cooperguy

Forcefield wrote: »

A lot of farmers I know have been forced off the land and into factory jobs and other jobs that they are not happy about. For me, I have land that is not large enough to live off. Even if I wanted to make a living off it i would find it hard, nay impossible!
Whereas before families survived on this.

Im not an expert on farming by any stretch of the imagination but is this not got more to do with modern industrial scale farming of massive amounts of land than pushing the small people out and not so much a result of EU policy?

anonymous_joe

Forcefield wrote: »

A lot of farmers I know have been forced off the land and into factory jobs and other jobs that they are not happy about. For me, I have land that is not large enough to live off. Even if I wanted to make a living off it i would find it hard, nay impossible!
Whereas before families survived on this.
Also in a lot of rural areas, there is a common threat of vast acres of land being turned into national parkland, thus further forcing more people off the land and indeed squeezing more people into densley populated areas. A common European style of life as opposed to a more traditional style of living.

Uhm...

Are you aware of what economies of scale are? Do you have any idea how many farmers we'd have without the CAP?

Forcefield

cooperguy wrote: »

Im not an expert on farming by any stretch of the imagination but is this not got more to do with modern industrial scale farming of massive amounts of land than pushing the small people out and not so much a result of EU policy?

Not in all cases.
this is true for the guys with the better flatter and more fertile land. But as you move west or into more hilly areas you will find less small farmers as before and these are the same areas of land being earmarked for parklands etc.
I know that we have moved with the time however and it is more feasible to farm larger areas.

Forcefield

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Uhm...

Are you aware of what economies of scale are? Do you have any idea how many farmers we'd have without the CAP?

I know that, but what I find interesting is how on one hand Europe gives us one thing and on the other it takes away another thing. What is annoying is that when you go to the supermarket today less and less produce is genuinely Irish, between imported Meat and veg, we seem to be losing a lot.
At least in small farming areas there is more of a genuine Irish feeling, but we have to move with the times also and accept that we are providing a global economy.

Was it healthier before when we produced our own goods and supplied ourselves?

cooperguy

Forcefield wrote: »

I know that, but what I find interesting is how on one hand Europe gives us one thing and on the other it takes away another thing. What is annoying is that when you go to the supermarket today less and less produce is genuinely Irish, between imported Meat and veg, we seem to be losing a lot.
At least in small farming areas there is more of a genuine Irish feeling, but we have to move with the times also and accept that we are providing a global economy.

Was it healthier before when we produced our own goods and supplied ourselves?

Probably. But its unsustainable now in a much more populated world where people want a wide variety for a lower cost. Is this still a reason for you voting no?

Scofflaw

conchubhar1 wrote: »

that is an argument for the eu - not lisbon
will the eu be less nice or worse for us should we vote no?

scofflaw - they are all great reasons.

my question - why the hell were these not part of the eu since nice?, maastricht? or since the begginning?

Well, as turgon put it very briefly, the EU is an evolving structure. There wasn't a handy blueprint for something like the EU when it was conceived, so it has to go forward step by step. Not only that, but each and every step has to be negotiated with all the member states, and then ratified by their parliaments or people.

It's worth remembering, given the amazing amount of column inches dedicated to the EU's democratic legitimacy with the citizens, that if it has no legitimacy with the governments, it is dead. We're entitled, as citizens, to have democratic input into the EU, and without us the project becomes dangerously illegitimate, but it's completely unrealistic to suggest that the vast majority of us have the time or inclination to actually run or guide it.

So, that means the governments very carefully balance what they're all comfortable with against what they know is needed. What they're not comfortable with is creating a European government, with a democratic mandate that exceeds their own, but on the other hand they have to have democratic input into the EU. So they go forward very slowly.

On the flip side is the fact that the EU originally had very limited competences, and ones which, although they always had a political purpose, were entirely economic. Indeed, originally, the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community) only had competence over coal and steel, because those were the essential sinews of war - that's why Euratom was added later - and things that, at the market level, had little impact on people's daily lives. As competences have been added by the member states, and the governments have become more comfortable with the idea that pooling sovereignty works for them rather than against them, the effect of the EU on our daily lives has increased. The member states have responded to this by increasing the extent of democratic input into the EU, on the basis that the more the EU affects the citizen, the more the citizen should be able to affect the EU.

However, since that's done treaty by treaty, the extent of the democratic input can be out of step with the extent of the EU's influence. Most of what is offered as reasons to vote No to Lisbon are in fact things that were in Nice (CCCTB, European Arrest Warrant, Commission reduction, the EDA, etc etc). This one - Lisbon, - is actually the balancing treaty, which increases democratic and national inputs to match the new powers in Nice. That's one of the reasons it's particularly annoying to hear people shouting about how it's a "power grab" (what power?) and "anti-democratic".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Forcefield wrote: »

A lot of farmers I know have been forced off the land and into factory jobs and other jobs that they are not happy about. For me, I have land that is not large enough to live off. Even if I wanted to make a living off it i would find it hard, nay impossible!
Whereas before families survived on this.
Also in a lot of rural areas, there is a common threat of vast acres of land being turned into national parkland, thus further forcing more people off the land and indeed squeezing more people into densley populated areas. A common European style of life as opposed to a more traditional style of living.

You could survive on your land (assuming you have a sixth of an acre) in a completely traditional manner, simply by growing and eating spuds. One acre of spuds will support a family of six, after all, and spuds contain virtually all the nutrients you might require to keep you and yours healthy and church-going.

If that's not what you mean, then I think your use of "traditional style of living" is probably completely meaningless, since you are obviously picking and choosing what constitutes 'traditional'.

Without CAP, and the EU's tariff walls, Irish farmers would have gone out of business the moment the country became wealthy enough to buy imported food. Even now the IFA fights ferociously to keep out Brazilian beef, American farm produce, etc etc - they're not doing it for the good of the consumer.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

Forcefield wrote: »

I know that, but what I find interesting is how on one hand Europe gives us one thing and on the other it takes away another thing. What is annoying is that when you go to the supermarket today less and less produce is genuinely Irish, between imported Meat and veg, we seem to be losing a lot.
At least in small farming areas there is more of a genuine Irish feeling, but we have to move with the times also and accept that we are providing a global economy.

Was it healthier before when we produced our own goods and supplied ourselves?

The organic spuds in my local Dunnes are produce of Israel, they're not in the EU. It seems that your 'beef' is with modern consumerism and logistics operations that get those spuds to Dunnes, and even Dunnes for stocking them.

None of this has anything to do with the EU, as clearly, Israel aren't members.

blackgold>>

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Is that the worst argument ever made? 'If I was a holocaust denier...' If you were a holocaust denier I'd happily drag you to Germany myself. In fact, were any of what you said true, I'd be even more inclined to vote yes. But, as ever, it's all lies. Glad to see you sticking up for the holocaust deniers though, those lads really get a rough deal don't they?

Your missing the point Joe, it was an example.... Emotional hysterics aside, I said revionist, not denier.Atleast get the subject matter correct.I actually thought I could get dragged to germany on said charges.As you know I was incorrect in my understanding of the eu arrest warrent. Thankfully, scoff explained it is not the case.

turgon

Another point Forcefield, what you seem to suggest is that the EU give ye protection from farmers in, say, Israel. But then thats completely punishing the consumer, as we have to pay extra just so you can live a certain kind of lifestyle.

Forcefield

cooperguy wrote: »

Probably. But its unsustainable now in a much more populated world where people want a wide variety for a lower cost. Is this still a reason for you voting no?

I have no idea what to vote for really. Confused about the whole thing.

conchubhar1

Forcefield wrote: »

I have no idea what to vote for really. Confused about the whole thing.

amen!

luckily there is another 4 (ish?) months

Forcefield

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

The organic spuds in my local Dunnes are produce of Israel, they're not in the EU. It seems that your 'beef' is with modern consumerism and logistics operations that get those spuds to Dunnes, and even Dunnes for stocking them.

None of this has anything to do with the EU, as clearly, Israel aren't members.

Yes your are right I suppose, modern consumerism has me baffled in terms of what we are capable of producing and what we actually consume ourselves.
Still dunno what the Yes vote does for us though