Why voting no?

Riskymove

Ellie The Mess wrote: »

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

veto and commissioner are not directly related

Rb

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

No, not particularly.

I admit it is a bit extreme and probably merely an overreaction to what I perceived as an attempt to insult the "no" side. However, I am furious over the whole thing.

bill_ashmount

Rb wrote: »

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

Someday soon hopefully we'll see an end to the EU.

Don't ever be ashamed to vote NO in this referendum or any future referendums.

oscarBravo

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Someday soon hopefully we'll see an end to the EU.

Yup, and a return to the glory days of the sixties, when we were a proud economic powerhouse.

conchubhar1

all trade with europe will end, if the eu ends

and he will strike down upon us with great vengance and furious ANGER!


who you ask? the fairies that reside, possibly, somewhere because y'know its possible and we cant rule out that far fetched possibility

reasoned arguments, madness! oB

Mayo1

I'm voting No for EXACTLY the same reasons why I voted No the last time.:D

bill_ashmount

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yup, and a return to the glory days of the sixties, when we were a proud economic powerhouse.

If the people of Europe want an end to it then it will happen. If they don't, then it won't. I'm hopeful for the future, anti EU parties are rapidly gaining ground all over Europe.

UKIP in Britain, PVV in the Netherlands etc.

Freedom Party of Austria (17.5% in 2008 elections, Alliance for the Future of Austria (10.7% in 2008), A total of 28.2% in Austria alone.

Great news

Furious-Dave

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Someday soon hopefully we'll see an end to the EU.

Don't ever be ashamed to vote NO in this referendum or any future referendums.

I agree with your second comment, as long as a No vote is a properly informed one.

Your first comment however is exactly the type of thing that makes me so furious. Ireland would not have had such a booming economy if we were not in the EU. They lent us so much money to improve our infrastructure. You could of course argue that the current Government has squandered alot of that money, but that is an internal matter. So what happens to Ireland after the end of the EU? We go back to being a peasant farming community in the middle of the Atlantic? And the rest of Europe goes back to waring between themselves, as they have done for millennia?

Forcefield

You could of course argue that the current Government has squandered alot of that money

Couldn't agree more on that anyway. Biggest shower of nits ever. Is it true that none of the dept of finance staff have accounting backgrounds/qualifications. Lenihan is a Barrister right??

the_dark_side

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

yep, you should just go to a different mechanic and be rid of the first one

K-9

bill_ashmount wrote: »

If the people of Europe want an end to it then it will happen. If they don't, then it won't. I'm hopeful for the future, anti EU parties are rapidly gaining ground all over Europe.

UKIP in Britain, PVV in the Netherlands etc.

Freedom Party of Austria (17.5% in 2008 elections, Alliance for the Future of Austria (10.7% in 2008), A total of 28.2% in Austria alone.

Great news

I'd heard barring a few well exceptions like the above, Anti EU parties didn't do that well overall.

Kickaha

There has been a gradual shift from EEC(European economic community) to the European (economic and monetary)Union.
Now were the only people in Europe who have to vote on "berties compromise"..(look lads weel pull de european anthem an de european flag an weel get our guys to vote for it,you fellas can wiggle it thru without any vote at all ,now whose round is it?) treaty.

We voted to change our constitution for nice the second time around ,not because of any reexamination of the issues but because of a guilt trip laid on us about ,"we sucked cash out ..let others such as Poland do the same".
Even the pope joined in with a "young peoples of Ireland let the other countries in" type statement
Im sure this could have been done in a simpler fashion,enlargement of the economic union that is.

Im not going to visit the reasons why our super economy with its nice social welfare system had no reason to impose a time limit on labour migration like most other countries
We needed hod carriers for our burgeoning property market and I suppose the irony of that appealed to some politicians.

Prior to Nice we had "the lads" comin back from europe promising "8.2 billion structural funds in our time" as long as we keep voting yes to any changes to our constitution SEA etc.
In essence our + voting to changes to our constitution for Europe has been governed on a carrot and stick basis.

The main argument Ive read in favor of changing our constitution to allow the lisbon treaty to be rubber stamped is a reduction in beurocracy/red tape.
Thats all there is to the treaty?.I dont think so. Even a cursory/cowenery? reading of it wouldnt give that impression'

On the (burning) question of turf.. We have already run out of it, the EU wont allows us to cut any more ,it would be interesting to see an attempt to apply that to to Britains north sea oil.
Someone posted earlier about "frustrating the ambitions of every other member of the EU"
That might apply to some "the ambitions of other member states politicians"
On the democratic evidence we have so far from Ireland France and Holland we have "facilitated the ambitions of every other member of the EU".


Brian (cowen) thru superhuman effort and a stage managed "difficulty" has obtained worthless ious to hopefully massage the Irish peoples vote after identifying areas that could be persuaded to change their vote.An exerxise in "vote management" is my personal perception.
“You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”
(Abraham Lincoln)
I realise the quote is somewhat ironic coming from a president who won a war to unify a continent into "united states" but I think it applies nonetheless.

Lets say the constitutional change is passed this time around:Will there be a hold on ratification to conduct polls and examine why the Irish people voted yes ?.
excuse me again while I once again duck (low flying pigs).

Since we are supposed to vote on the same thing again why not word it in a more honest fashion this time for the "ignorant voters".
Do you wish to change our constitution to facilitate the formation of the United States of Europe, to be henceforth known as USE

"Lets be in the heart of Europe"...
What does that mean? Anything our politicians come up with is ok by us?
Aside from physically transporting Ireland to jam somewhere in between England ,Holland and France it doesnt mean much to me.

How about "Lets be the heart of Europe " and reject the European constitution as millions of other voters who are now disenfranchised already have?

CCCP^

I have to say I'm getting a little sick of some people's attitudes towards Ireland's No vote, for example in the paper today, there was a letter by someone who derided Ireland for having the cheek to vote No despite getting 40 billion in EU development aid and then went on to say that we were in essence holding back democracy because every other country wants this to go through except Ireland.

FFS. Last time I checked, 5 countries, including Ireland, voted on this - Spain, Luxembourg, France and the Netherlands. Two of those voted No and were not asked again to vote. Luxembourg said Yes (Luxembourg is probably smaller than Louth and has a population of less than a million I'd imagine) and Spain said Yes (terrible voter turnout on that occassion).

The rest of Europe did not vote due to the legal process in each country being different in that their Parliament's would pass it through. I think if most Europeans had been giving the oppurtunity to vote, they would have said No too, simply because this treaty is full of dense language and wording that could be taken in any interpretation. As far as I can see it will just mean our sovereignty is further eroded because the elite want the EU to challenge the US for global superiority. Where the hell is this whole thing going to end? In another bloody war as far as I can see.

That letter really annoyed me. I think it was the Metro or Herald that they give away for free on street corners. I'm not going to be bullied into voting Yes, and I have a feeling that this second referendum won't be as simple as Cowen and Co. would think. Sorry for the rant

PopeBuckfastXVI

And what do you think about the Lisbon Treaty CCCP?

CCCP^

I think the Lisbon Treaty can go **** itself.

the_dark_side

furthermore... An Board Snip's full report will probably not be published until after Lisbon 2, such is the nature of its content....

http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2009/jun/28/bord-snip-likely-to-cut-deep/

Harpie

This time, No

Out of spite*





*And in the name of democracy, but mainly- spite

K-9

the_dark_side wrote: »

furthermore... An Board Snip's full report will probably not be published until after Lisbon 2, such is the nature of its content....

http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2009/jun/28/bord-snip-likely-to-cut-deep/

Lisbon or the report? :rolleyes:

I'll repeat what must be the most asked question on this board, what has that got to do with Lisbon?

the_dark_side

K-9 wrote: »

Lisbon or the report? :rolleyes:

I'll repeat what must be the most asked question on this board, what has that got to do with Lisbon?

Its as simple as this... the government is aware that if the people of Ireland knew the full content of An Bord Snip's final report, in advance of the second Lisbon Treaty vote, then there would be every chance that the treaty would be rejected again... because of the severity of An Bord Snip's recommendations. The voters would associate one with the other, even though they may not be directly related.

An Bord Snip's full report would put voters in a very negative frame of mind.

Scofflaw

the_dark_side wrote: »

furthermore... An Board Snip's full report will probably not be published until after Lisbon 2, such is the nature of its content....

http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2009/jun/28/bord-snip-likely-to-cut-deep/

This is your 'authority' for that claim?

For that reason don't be surprised to see the report published in full at some point (although perhaps not until after the Lisbon referendum).

A throwaway remark by a journalist? I've seen a lot of flimsy justifications in these debates, but that's a new low.

extremely unimpressed,
Scofflaw

the_dark_side

Scofflaw wrote: »

This is your 'authority' for that claim?



A throwaway remark by a journalist? I've seen a lot of flimsy justifications in these debates, but that's a new low.

extremely unimpressed,
Scofflaw

Its not my authority for this remark, but its one of few references that there are online to what Im referring to.

I heard it from two different sources, but I cannot provide documented evidence. One of these sources is high within the dept of social welfare.. the other is a senior accounts manager for a hotel chain, who fore warned me in 2006 about what is happening now to the ecconomy.

(I dont think I have ever been on threads where the mods have been so active.... its as if you guys are policing it)

View

the_dark_side wrote: »

Its as simple as this... the government is aware that if the people of Ireland knew the full content of An Bord Snip's final report, in advance of the second Lisbon Treaty vote, then there would be every chance that the treaty would be rejected again... because of the severity of An Bord Snip's recommendations. The voters would associate one with the other, even though they may not be directly related.

An Bord Snip's full report would put voters in a very negative frame of mind.

Well, if true, all this means is that the Government is probably holding off on spending cuts that, in An Bord Snip's opinion, are necessary to fix the public finances. Meanwhile the Tax-payer's debt (i.e. the National Debt) is busy clocking up at a merry rate as the necessary (horrible) decisions to fix this are being postponed due to electoral considerations.

Still, I am sure that paying off an enlarged National Debt is a small price to pay. After all, during Lisbon I, weren't we all assured that there were no negative consequences to a No vote?

gizmo555

View wrote: »

Well, if true, all this means is that the Government is probably holding off on spending cuts that, in An Bord Snip's opinion, are necessary to fix the public finances. Meanwhile the Tax-payer's debt (i.e. the National Debt) is busy clocking up at a merry rate as the necessary (horrible) decisions to fix this are being postponed due to electoral considerations.

Still, I am sure that paying off an enlarged National Debt is a small price to pay. After all, during Lisbon I, weren't we all assured that there were no negative consequences to a No vote?

If the government cynically chooses to defer taking necessary corrective action on the economy in order to avoid upsetting voters before the referendum, thereby deliberately worsening our economic situation, that would be 100% the government's responsibility and nothing to do with those of us who oppose the treaty.

Scofflaw

the_dark_side wrote: »

Its not my authority for this remark, but its one of few references that there are online to what Im referring to.

I heard it from two different sources, but I cannot provide documented evidence. One of these sources is high within the dept of social welfare.. the other is a senior accounts manager for a hotel chain, who fore warned me in 2006 about what is happening now to the ecconomy.

(I dont think I have ever been on threads where the mods have been so active.... its as if you guys are policing it)

Active modding is pretty much the rule in the Politics forum - but 99% of the time I'm posting only as a poster. Moderation posts are marked as such, if a little idiosyncratically, and I try to keep the one separate from the other.

moderately,
Scofflaw

the_dark_side

Scofflaw wrote: »

Active modding is pretty much the rule in the Politics forum - but 99% of the time I'm posting only as a poster. Moderation posts are marked as such, if a little idiosyncratically, and I try to keep the one separate from the other.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Understood... just curious

View

gizmo555 wrote: »

If the government cynically chooses to defer taking necessary corrective action on the economy in order to avoid upsetting voters before the referendum, thereby deliberately worsening our economic situation, that would be 100% the government's responsibility and nothing to do with those of us who oppose the treaty.

Governments routinely postpone tough decisions until after elections are over. There is no reason to believe they would or should do anything else for referenda.

The Government's decision could be based on their belief that passing Lisbon is more important on a medium to long term basis for Ireland than the any potential damage caused by allowing the national debt to clock up in the meantime.

Obviously, as a No voter, you probably won't agree with their decision but since they - not you - make the domestic decisions on what to do, and when to do it, it is their call on the issue. And, the obvious point is the Government wouldn't be calling a second referendum if there was a yes vote the first time.

Either which way though, it doesn't alter that we were all assured by No campaigners that there were no negative consequence to a no vote. Personally, I'd classify an increased national debt as being a negative consequence. I can think of better things to do with the public's money...

FutureTaoiseach

I'm voting no primarily because of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Lisbon I was my first no vote in an EU referendum having voted yes in the previous 3 EU referenda. At heart, I am a pro-European, but I defend vigorously my right to hold the institutions to account just as much as the Irish govt. Besides the content of Lisbon, I also have concerns about the subterfuge that was used after the French and Dutch no votes to essentially recreate the rejected EU Constitution under the guise of the Lisbon Treaty. Bertie Ahern and Brian Cowen have admitted that Lisbon is 90-5% of the rejected EU Constitution. I have moral issues about foisting a transfer of sovereignty to Brussels on nations who, in exercising their respective right to self-determination, have rejected the provisions of this Treaty in referenda. In rejecting Lisbon, we were in essence the third nation to say no to its provisions. I know that de jure, that was not the case. But in essence, it was.

I also have concerns about the Government's stated intentions to "review" the Protocol allowing Ireland to optin-out on an ad hoc basis to common policies in the area of Justice and Home Affairs, which includes sensitive areas such as policing, judicial-cooperation, asylum and immigration and border-controls. The legislation allowing for the constitutional amendment we rejected in Lisbon I included a paragraph allowing the govt, with the consent of the Oireachtas, to surrender that Protocol. Were that to happen, we would have to submit to Qualified Majority Voting on Justice and Home Affairs. That is because Justice and Home Affairs issues (covering 16 national-vetoes), is subject to Qualified Majority Voting under Lisbon, except that Ireland currently has an optout from this. I also have concerns as to how the ECJ would interpret the Charter after the Protocol is relinquished, as well as FG's opposition to the optout. A full list of surrender vetoes under the Lisbon Treaty may be found here. Bear in mind that under the Protocol, we retain the 16 Justice and Home Affairs vetoes but that the Government announced its intention to "review" it within 3 years, and that the text of the 28th amendment to the Constitution Bill (Lisbon I referendum) allowed the govt to surrender that Protocol.The relevant paragraph of the Lisbon I legislation that causes me most concern in this context is as follows:

13° The State may exercise the option to secure that the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice annexed to the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly known as the Treaty establishing the European Community) shall, in whole or in part, cease to apply to the State, but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Specific concerns of mine in relation to the Charter of Fundamental Rights include:

Article 6 TEU (as amended by Lisbon) wrote:

The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as adapted at Strasbourg, on 12 December 2007, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties.

Having the same value as the Treaties effectively means they will override the Irish Constitution, because since 1973, the Irish Constitution has contained a provision elevating EU law to a superior position than the Constitution itself:

Article 29.4.10 wrote:

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.

Article 15, Charter of Fundamental Rights wrote:

Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work

1. Everyone has the right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation.

2. Every citizen of the Union has the freedom to seek employment, to work, to exercise the right of establishment and to provide services in any Member State.

3. Nationals of third countries who are authorised to work in the territories of the Member States are entitled to working conditions equivalent to those of citizens of the Union.

Article's 18 and 19 enshrine ECJ interference in our asylum-system:

COFR, Article 18 wrote:

The right to asylum shall be guaranteed with due respect for the rules of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees and in accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community.

COFR, Article 19 wrote:

1. Collective expulsions are prohibited.

2. No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 18 will prevent Ireland withdrawing from the Convention if we believe it is being abused for economic-migration rather than by genuine refugees. Article 19 will effectively allow the ECJ to decide what constitutes a "serious risk" to the safety of the asylum-seeker and what constitutes "inhuman and degrading treatment". Furthermore, the significance of inserting these provisions into EU law is that they come within the ECJ's jurisdiction. As such, the ECJ will be determining whether it believes we are keeping to the Convention in individual asylum-cases. In affect, for all intents and purposes, we will be adding yet another layer of asylum-appeals on top of a system that already takes years in this country. No thanks.

This is the first time the ECJ is being given jurisdiction over fundamental rights. And it is the first time in the history of the EU that the right to asylum - a right flagrantly abused for economic-migration and welfare-tourism - is being enshrined into EU law by a Treaty. Even the European Convention on Human Rights - which defenders of the Charter say the latter is based on - doesn't contain such a right. It is the height of nonsense to allow the ECJ to stick its maw into this sensitive area. There are also ethical questions in terms of the impact of the ECJ on abortion, euthanasia etc. owing to provisions in the Charter such as the right to privacy:

Article 7 wrote:

Respect for private and family life

Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.

This can be expected to result in challenges in the ECJ on the basis that deportation of bogus asylum-seekers with children in this country would undermine "respect for family life". We have already seen attempts by illegals in this country to use the Irish Constitution's provisions on the right of the child to the 'company of its parents' to obstruct deportations from this country, and we can expect that provisions such as Article 7 of the Charter will be latched onto by asylum-lawyers as another loophole they can exploit in challenging deportations in the ECJ. Furthermore, the right to privacy was the basis of the Roe v Wade judgement in 1974 by the US Supreme Court.

For the first time, the Lisbon Treaty specifically enshrines the Charter of Fundamental Rights into EU law:

Article 6 TEU (as amended by Lisbon) wrote:

The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as adapted at Strasbourg, on 12 December 2007, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties.

Article 15, Charter of Fundamental Rights wrote:

Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work

1. Everyone has the right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation.

2. Every citizen of the Union has the freedom to seek employment, to work, to exercise the right of establishment and to provide services in any Member State.

3. Nationals of third countries who are authorised to work in the territories of the Member States are entitled to working conditions equivalent to those of citizens of the Union.

This will lead to a challenge in the ECJ to the Irish ban on employment for asylum-seekers. With the UK having an optout from the Charter, we could become the only English-speaking country in the EU to allow them to work, if the ECJ strikes down our ban.
Article's 18 and 19 enshrine ECJ interference in our asylum-system:

COFR, Article 18 wrote:

The right to asylum shall be guaranteed with due respect for the rules of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees and in accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community.

COFR, Article 19 wrote:

1. Collective expulsions are prohibited.

2. No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 18 will prevent Ireland withdrawing from the Convention if we believe it is being abused for economic-migration rather than by genuine refugees. Article 19 will effectively allow the ECJ to decide what constitutes a "serious risk" to the safety of the asylum-seeker and what constitutes "inhuman and degrading treatment". Furthermore, the significance of inserting these provisions into EU law is that they come within the ECJ's jurisdiction. As such, the ECJ will be determining whether it believes we are keeping to the Convention in individual asylum-cases. In affect, for all intents and purposes, we will be adding yet another layer of asylum-appeals on top of a system that already takes years in this country. No thanks.

This is the first time the ECJ is being given jurisdiction over fundamental rights. And it is the first time in the history of the EU that the right to asylum - a right flagrantly abused for economic-migration and welfare-tourism - is being enshrined into EU law by a Treaty. Even the European Convention on Human Rights - which defenders of the Charter say the latter is based on - doesn't contain such a right. It is the height of nonsense to allow the ECJ to stick its maw into this sensitive area. There are also ethical questions in terms of the impact of the ECJ on abortion, euthanasia etc. owing to provisions in the Charter such as the right to privacy:

Article 7 wrote:

Respect for private and family life Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.

This can be expected to result in challenges in the ECJ on the basis that deportation of bogus asylum-seekers with children in this country would undermine "respect for family life". We have already seen attempts by illegals in this country to use the Irish Constitution's provisions on the right of the child to the 'company of its parents' to obstruct deportations from this country, and we can expect that provisions such as Article 7 of the Charter will be latched onto by asylum-lawyers as another loophole they can exploit in challenging deportations in the ECJ.

Article 9 wrote:

Right to marry and right to found a family
The right to marry and the right to found a family shall be guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights.

This will be used by the ECJ to prevent member states from restricting marriages-of-convenience by illegal immigrants attempting to gain residency in countries like Ireland. We already have a preview of this from the Metock case (2008) where Irish law requiring non-EU spouses to have had prior residency in another EU member state as a condition of gaining residency here. The govt claims to be attempting to close the loophole, but this could well reopen it.

Article 21 wrote:

Non-discrimination
1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.
2. Within the scope of application of the Treaty establishing the European Community and of the Treaty on European Union, and without prejudice to the special provisions of those Treaties, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.

This will be used to challenge deportation-orders in the ECJ. I am opposed to discrimination on all those grounds except nationality, because every nation state discriminates through conferring certain rights on its citizens relative to non-citizens. That does not make such discrimination "racist". It will be argued in the ECJ that deportations are discriminatory because they are only practiced against foreign-nationals. Again, we are opening the door to abuse of our asylum system and to dictation of our asylum and citizenship laws from the ECJ in Luxembourg. Indeed it is possible these provisions will allow the ECJ to overturn the Citizenship referendum of 2004 which removed the automatic right to Irish citizenship on grounds of birth on this island. That would be another attack on democracy in addition to the disrespect shown to the Irish no vote.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Actually... mods please delete this... I couldn't be bothered engaging...

FutureTaoiseach

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Actually... mods please delete this... I couldn't be bothered engaging...

I'm not opposed to immigration, but I am opposed to allowing the ECJ dictate our policy in this area. We're in a recession, so charity must begin at home. It has to be regulated.

Kickaha

Yes indeedy lets delete any post or opinion that doesnt agree with ours.