Why voting no?

Scofflaw

Forcefield wrote: »

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

Specifically for Ireland? Couldn't really say - it's not like there's a clause in Lisbon that says "Article 478a: give Ireland loads of money".

What it does do for us in Ireland is it makes the EU more effective at what it does. It's a bit like making a public bus route you use faster or cheaper, and then asking "but what's in that for me specifically?".

cordially,
Scofflaw

cooperguy

Forcefield wrote: »

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

Well this is the place to figure it out Im much more of a lurker on this forum most of the time but it has cleared up a good bit about what the treaty actually does.

Forcefield

Scofflaw wrote: »

Specifically for Ireland? Couldn't really say - it's not like there's a clause in Lisbon that says "Article 478a: give Ireland loads of money".

What it does do for us in Ireland is it makes the EU more effective at what it does. It's a bit like making a public bus route you use faster or cheaper, and then asking "but what's in that for me specifically?".

cordially,
Scofflaw

I see, so its a stay in with the boys kind of thing.
If the No vote gets pushed through again what happens? Will we be viewed as the bold children?

Forcefield

cooperguy wrote: »

Well this is the place to figure it out Im much more of a lurker on this forum most of the time but it has cleared up a good bit about what the treaty actually does.

well I'm new to this - so anything helps

Rb

turgon wrote: »

Change the EU in a positive manner. A constructive outcome you would agree? I mean, you voting No will achieve nothing and the things you want to vote No for will not change. On the other hand the reasons I am voting Yes will be directly implemented through ratification.

Oh but Turgon, you were so opposed to the treaty last time and yet are now so for it, the treaty hasn't changed so what has...?

Scofflaw wrote: »

Mind you, the No side's favourite 'non-Lisbon' reason for voting Yes is "the EU's been good for us", and when you think about it, that's a perfectly reasonable reason for voting Yes. it's shorthand for two statements, first that membership of the EU has benefited Ireland, and that the EU has acted well towards Ireland - taken together, that suggests that in the absence of any major objections, it's entirely reasonable to vote Yes, because the Treaty is being offered by an organisation whose intentions towards us have always been good, and whose actions have nearly always benefited us.

Increased democracy, increased subsidiarity, greater transparency, a little more efficiency, an end to the current aimlessness.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Referring to the part I have emboldened and purely out of curiosity, if the EU is currently "aimless" then what "aim" or "direction" do you personally want to see it take and what do you see as Ireland's role in it?

I think the previously rejected constitution spelled out the direction those in Brussels want this union to go in and I'm certainly not in favour of that.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Rb wrote: »

Referring to the part I have emboldened and purely out of curiosity, if the EU is currently "aimless" then what "aim" or "direction" do you personally want to see it take and what do you see as Ireland's role in it?

Sorry if I'm jumping across the answer here, but I think a common frustration with Lisbon, from the 'yes' side of the house, is that it is taking so long to ratify, and leading on from the failed constitution, so much time has been wasted, that could otherwise have been put towards actually getting on with running the thing, instead of talking about how to run the thing.

Hopefully full ratification by all member states will mean that there will be less talk and more work from the EU.

cooperguy

Forcefield wrote:

I see, so its a stay in with the boys kind of thing.
If the No vote gets pushed through again what happens? Will we be viewed as the bold children?

I wouldnt say that really. The treaty makes for a more efficiently operated, more democratic Europe. That has benefits for everybody.

Scofflaw

Rb wrote: »

Oh but Turgon, you were so opposed to the treaty last time and yet are now so for it, the treaty hasn't changed so what has...?

Turgon's mind, one rather presumes.

Rb wrote: »

Referring to the part I have emboldened and purely out of curiosity, if the EU is currently "aimless" then what "aim" or "direction" do you personally want to see it take and what do you see as Ireland's role in it?

I don't see institutional arrangements as dictating the 'direction' of the EU - it's more that the current state of uncertainty has made the EU slow even in its capacity to react. Ending that uncertainty will not, of itself, provide a direction for the EU, more the capacity to move in some direction. The 'direction' I'd prefer to see the EU 'go in' is a rather larger topic.

Rb wrote: »

I think the previously rejected constitution spelled out the direction those in Brussels want this union to go in and I'm certainly not in favour of that.

"Those in Brussels" don't write the treaties.

cordially,
Scofflaw

conchubhar1

neither do those in dublin

anonymous_joe

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?

But what does that have to do with Lisbon?

And yeah, tbh, there's no way our beef industry would survive, nor any of our farming industries. Only our fishing would survive were we without the EU, but that wouldn't sustain the country.

blackgold>> wrote: »

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.

Yeah, fair enough, sorry for being so bítchy, I was caffeineless.

Scofflaw

conchubhar1 wrote: »

neither do those in dublin

Er, yes, "those in Dublin" do, in exactly the way that "those in Brussels" don't. They don't write them alone, but the treaties are negotiated between the member states, not written by the EU.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Judgement Day

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.

YET! The EEC/EU is like NATO, ever expanding - why stop at Turkey when Asia is so close?

conchubhar1

yes, my point being

brussels (belgium) along with other member states decide on whats in the treaties
dublin or Brussels or whoever alone do not

PopeBuckfastXVI

Judgement Day wrote: »

YET! The EEC/EU is like NATO, ever expanding - why stop at Turkey when Asia is so close?

Yes but his problem is with the rewards for agriculture today, and Israel is currently not in the EU. So your postulation, while possible, is completely irrelevant.

Thanks though.

Scofflaw

conchubhar1 wrote: »

yes, my point being

brussels (belgium) along with other member states decide on whats in the treaties
dublin or Brussels or whoever alone do not

Er, OK - but "Brussels" as Rb is using it, is short-hand for the EU, rather than for Belgium.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Forcefield wrote: »

I see, so its a stay in with the boys kind of thing.

No, it's the improvement of a common service. If someone proposes making the Health Service more efficient, is it reasonable to ask "well, what's in that for me specifically?".

Forcefield wrote: »

If the No vote gets pushed through again what happens? Will we be viewed as the bold children?

Dead treaty, probably, and no. We might be viewed as an ungrateful shower who wouldn't vote for an EU treaty unless it came with a cash packet, but the operating assumption is that we're adults.

cordially,
Scofflaw

conchubhar1

well, if that is what he meant

cordial as usual, conchubhar

turgon

Rb wrote: »

Oh but Turgon, you were so opposed to the treaty last time and yet are now so for it, the treaty hasn't changed so what has...?

I grew a bit mature, stoped messing about with democracy, and realised that Lisbon is a step in the right direction.

Really you should come over to the Yes side, its quite a thrill. No ducking and diving. I can prove lots of stuff from the Treaty White paper, something the No side cant do. It makes posting so much easier.

And funnily enough, it is way way more frustrating. So apologies to conchubar1 for the immature way I acted today (and yesterday), wont happen again.

Ellie The Mess

I can see much discussion going on here and that's always a pleasure. I agree with the people that say that the good outcomes of the Lisbon Treaty overweight the bad in many ways:

because the rules it introduces modernize treaties that have become old like the TEC (signed in March 1957)

because it makes the European Charter of Human Rights become integral part of the European Law so as the European Court of Human Rights will be helped by the European Court of Justice in doing its job therefore speeding up the all process.

because it introduces a good lot of rules regarding social security (e.g. cooperation between member states as regard to fighting crime)

because, as it was explained above, the weight of the Irish vote will not change much among the Council

because it is not true that the Irish will lose their veto power in the Commission, in fact after the Irish referendum, the Council decided in December 2008 to go back to one Commissioner per member state with effect from the date of entry into force of the Treaty

because the co-decision procedure will give more power to the only institution directly elected by the people (Parliament)

because the creation of the so called European Foreign Minister has been promised since 1992 and it will not undermine Irish Foreign policy as "the provisions covering Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) including in relation to the (new) High Representative would not affect the existing legal basis, responsibilities, and powers of each Member State in relation to the formulation and conduct of its foreign policy, its national diplomatic service, relations with third countries and participation in international organisations, including a Member State's membership of the UN Security Council.
The Conference also notes that the provisions covering CFSP do not give new powers to the Commission to initiate decisions or increase the role of the European Parliament. The Conference also recalls that the provisions governing the CFSP do not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of the Member States. "

because yes, the guarantees that Brian Cowen will receive will be legally binding

Rb

turgon wrote: »

I grew a bit mature, stoped messing about with democracy, and realised that Lisbon is a step in the right direction.

Really you should come over to the Yes side, its quite a thrill. No ducking and diving. I can prove lots of stuff from the Treaty White paper, something the No side cant do. It makes posting so much easier.

And funnily enough, it is way way more frustrating. So apologies to conchubar1 for the immature way I acted today (and yesterday), wont happen again.

I'd rather see EU collapse than vote Yes, to be quite honest.

Also, with regards to the "immature" and "stopped messing with democracy" comment, once again more condescending tripe from the Yes side, well done.

K-9

Rb wrote: »

I'd rather see EU collapse than vote Yes, to be quite honest.

You think Lisbon is that bad?

Why?

Scofflaw

Rb wrote: »

I'd rather see EU collapse than vote Yes, to be quite honest.

Also, with regards to the "immature" and "stopped messing with democracy" comment, once again more condescending tripe from the Yes side, well done.

Since turgon is referring to himself, you're really going out of your way to be insulted there.

surprised,
Scofflaw

cooperguy

Rb wrote: »

I'd rather see EU collapse than vote Yes, to be quite honest.

Really? Why is it that bad?

the_dark_side

Ask Switzerland and Norway, both not in the EU... both have escaped the ravages of this recession. Ever wonder why they havent joined?

Scofflaw

the_dark_side wrote: »

Ask Switzerland and Norway, both not in the EU... both have escaped the ravages of this recession. Ever wonder why they havent joined?

Protecting banking secrecy in one case, and oil revenues in the other. Also, the claim is inaccurate - Norway is in recession (see here), as is Switzerland. Also, the US, as I'm sure you're aware, isn't in the EU, nor is Japan, or Australia, or the vast majority of countries that are in recession.

You should always check common wisdom before using it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

the_dark_side wrote: »

Ask Switzerland and Norway, both not in the EU... both have escaped the ravages of this recession. Ever wonder why they havent joined?

Ever wondered why Iceland wants to join?

BlitzKrieg

the_dark_side wrote: »

Ask Switzerland and Norway, both not in the EU... both have escaped the ravages of this recession. Ever wonder why they havent joined?

Both are still members of the European Free Trade Association and Norway is part of the European Economic Area which in its case means that Norway still puts almost all EU laws into effect in their country, but have no say in the development of said laws.

Boskowski

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's refreshing to hear new arguments rather than the same old ones repeated once more.

Well, people might come up with new arguments (or not) when the 'old' ones are sufficiently dealt with. But they're not.

Rb

K-9 wrote: »

You think Lisbon is that bad?

Why?

cooperguy wrote: »

Really? Why is it that bad?

The reason I said I'd rather see the EU collapse than vote yes is less to do with the treaty itself and more to do with my anger over how badly this whole thing has been handled and the attitudes towards this country, its citizens and its democratically decided result shown by European leaders such as Sarkozy.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Since turgon is referring to himself, you're really going out of your way to be insulted there.

surprised,
Scofflaw

I don't think it's too far flung to interpret that as a dig towards the "no" side to be honest.

oscarBravo

Rb wrote: »

The reason I said I'd rather see the EU collapse than vote yes is less to do with the treaty itself and more to do with my anger over how badly this whole thing has been handled and the attitudes towards this country, its citizens and its democratically decided result shown by European leaders such as Sarkozy.

Isn't that a little like pushing your car into a lake because you're unhappy with your mechanic's attitude?