Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

PopeBuckfastXVI

andrewdcs wrote: »

I'll be as brief as I can....

Lisbon wants to streamline and simplify FDI (amongst other trade disciplines) as an EU competence alone, removing ratification of such treaties from national parliaments and giving it to the European parliament* acting via the Commission under the Council (as per a lot of EU business). This will give the commission and its foreign affairs minister a huge amount of influence, equal to that of (greater than?) the state department in the US. This isn't a huge change from status quo admittedly, it formalises it legally.

However, depending on political flavour of the month in the EP (and not domestically) Ireland / Germany or whoever could get "lumped" with trade deal against the current cultural "flow" in whatever country, left right, whatever.
I find this an abstraction of democratic political power in its most direct form, that of international trade, and I am very strongly opposed to it.

I could go on all day, but ultimately its a nuanced political maneuver to ensure "better" quicker trade deals for Europe, you can be for that or agin' it. I'm not sure Europe needs to strong arm a better trade deal from, say various African trade confederations than Ireland may have already and German may have on their own, no matter how justly. Replace African with American above and that changes dramatically in tone, but my principal is the same.

*(also, have you SEEN who gets into the European Parliament? And people don't think they have any power! If Lisbon goes ahead, and perhaps it should and my trade worries are subsumed, we HAVE to start turning out and picking heavy hitters, not jolly seekers, we have to get involved in Europe, as Lisbon gives Europe a real mandate)

Thanks Andrew,

You have very well informed and interesting views, I agree fully about the jokers we send to the EP, because we think it's safe and harmless.

I disagree that streamlining FDI or trade agreements outweighs all the gains in Lisbon, I can quite easily offset the commitment to fight climate change as a net gain for the planet in my mind, but each their own.

Elmo

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I wasn't referring to the British conservative party, I was referring to the other radical right wing groups on the no side such as the UKIP and the German neo-nazis. The conservatives have always been euro sceptic so them being against the treaty is also hardly surprising.

And even if they conservatives did hold a ref they would look for a yes vote IMO

andrewdcs

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Thanks Andrew,
I disagree that streamlining FDI or trade agreements outweighs all the gains in Lisbon, I can quite easily offset the commitment to fight climate change as a net gain for the planet in my mind, but each their own.

I think climate change is a rare consensus view in Europe, and thankfully now in the US (but if you can't get consensus, get a qualified majority!

I don't see a Lisbon 'No' as a constitutional crisis for Europe (or Ireland), nor do I see a 'Yes' as a precursor to a blissfully cooperative European brotherhood (which I'd like to see). I'll use my vote on the many issues presented to me, I can't compromise on "hot button" issues, for some its abortion (which Lisbon has nothing to do with imho) others its labour rights (which the EU is the greatest defender of) for me its international trade negotiation (which admittedly is bigger than Lisbon itself).

I suppose I have to think of this issue as being my personal veto on Lisbon?!?

Spiritoftheseventies

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes Ryanair is anti-union but look at all these groups who support the treaty:


I doubt they're all anti-union, especially the unions.

Yes but Im talking about Ryan air seeing Michael O Leary is at this stage one of the most vocal and foremost campaigners for yes vote. And Michael O Leary and Ryan Air are the same thing. You can't really separate the two.

Sam Vimes

bayviewclose wrote: »

Yes but Im talking about Ryan air seeing Michael O Leary is at this stage one of the most vocal and foremost campaigners for yes vote. And Michael O Leary and Ryan Air are the same thing. You can't really separate the two.

Yes I know you're talking about Ryanair and you have suggested that the fact that MOL is anti-union is in some way relevant. In response I have mentioned all the unions that support the treaty which blows that theory out of the water

Spiritoftheseventies

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes I know you're talking about Ryanair and you have suggested that the fact that MOL is anti-union is in some way relevant. In response I have mentioned all the unions that support the treaty which blows that theory out of the water

No it doesnt because they may be supporting treaty for different reasons. Ill say it again. Ryan Air or their public persona would not back this treaty if it was stacked towards workers rights as everyone says.
And again that whole question about the Aer Lingus takeover does not go away. Theory is if Ryanair put their weight behind this treaty, Eu will scratch their back in return.

Shane St.

Has to be yes

MrMatisse

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes I know you're talking about Ryanair and you have suggested that the fact that MOL is anti-union is in some way relevant. In response I have mentioned all the unions that support the treaty which blows that theory out of the water

The unions do but do their members?

Did they consult them?

Sam Vimes

bayviewclose wrote: »

No it doesnt because they may be supporting treaty for different reasons.

Well if they're supporting it for different reasons then yes it does
It means the fact that they're anti-union is irrelevant because they have other reasons

bayviewclose wrote: »

Ill say it again. Ryan Air or their public persona would not back this treaty if it was stacked towards workers rights as everyone says.
And again that whole question about the Aer Lingus takeover does not go away. Theory is if Ryanair put their weight behind this treaty, Eu will scratch their back in return.

It doesn't create magnificent new workers rights but nor does it destroy them as the socialists would have you believe. Maybe the thought that it might bring him closer to Aer Lingur did cross his mind but is it so hard to believe that he might also think it would be good for the country? There are a lot of things he could have done to scratch backs but he chose this

Sam Vimes

Really-Stressed wrote: »

The unions do but do their members?

Did they consult them?

I don't know, you'd have to ask them. I think it's likely that many of their member don't but equally likely that if you asked them why not one thing in the answer would be true

K-9

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Got a link?

Did SF vote on Lisbon as a party this time round?

http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2009/sep/27/cash-crisis-in-sinn-fein/

Don't think so, didn't hear anything.

reopen the poll !!!

nia87

I'm voting No. Didn't get a chance to in the last referendum but I probably would have voted No then aswell....

Run_to_da_hills

Gap might yet reach 100 before Friday

The Volt

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Gap might yet reach 100 before Friday

If people were to continue to re-register yes.

Spiritoftheseventies

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well if they're supporting it for different reasons then yes it does
It means the fact that they're anti-union is irrelevant because they have other reasons



It doesn't create magnificent new workers rights but nor does it destroy them as the socialists would have you believe. Maybe the thought that it might bring him closer to Aer Lingur did cross his mind but is it so hard to believe that he might also think it would be good for the country? There are a lot of things he could have done to scratch backs but he chose this

No. O Leary's sole MO is to make money. Treaty seeks to improve conditions of workers. As such if O' Leary is pushing for yes vote, something is up

K-9

bayviewclose wrote: »

No. O Leary's sole MO is to make money. Treaty seeks to improve conditions of workers. As such if O' Leary is pushing for yes vote, something is up

So, by using the same logic Corporation Tax can't be under threat because SF are on the No side.

Jaysus, if we all thought like that, this campaign would be over long ago.

Spiritoftheseventies

K-9 wrote: »

So, by using the same logic Corporation Tax can't be under threat because SF are on the No side.

Jaysus, if we all thought like that, this campaign would be over long ago.

again O leary is not pro worker. And this treaty if charter is to be believed is pro workers rights. So marry the two. O Leary voting yes, The treaty being pro workers.

Spook_ie

ei.sdraob wrote: »

if you looked a few posts up

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62305407&postcount=3152

/

And why would I let someone else's stance influence me, I believe it's a step towards a Federated States of Europe and as such I don't care what's in the treaty that might be good for Ireland or what's in it that might be bad or who is supporting it or not supporting it.
I just don't believe we should be taking the EU down that path or even anywhere near it and it's a NO vote from me.

prinz

Spook_ie wrote: »

And why would I let someone else's stance influence me, I believe it's a step towards a Federated States of Europe.

http://www.fpri.org/ww/0405.200312.ganley.euconstitution.html

Read this and then rethink your objections to Lisbon.

meglome

Spook_ie wrote: »

And why would I let someone else's stance influence me, I believe it's a step towards a Federated States of Europe and as such I don't care what's in the treaty that might be good for Ireland or what's in it that might be bad or who is supporting it or not supporting it.
I just don't believe we should be taking the EU down that path or even anywhere near it and it's a NO vote from me.

The German constitutional court found there was nothing in Lisbon that created a federalist state. NOTHING. But sure why listen to experts when you've already decided what you want to believe.

Spiritoftheseventies

prinz wrote: »

http://www.fpri.org/ww/0405.200312.ganley.euconstitution.html

Read this and then rethink your objections to Lisbon.

Care to highlight any points there?

prinz

bayviewclose wrote: »

Care to highlight any points there?

Sure..

A federal Europe is a pretty good idea..

A United States of Europe, structured properly, could benefit Europeans and the world.

New parties and organizations could address Europe’s needs at the levels where most of the decisions affecting us are, or should be, made: the macro level in Europe, our broader community..

It is time to map out a new and better United Europe.

It is time for the creation of new, truly pan-European political organizations.

Yet another American founding father, James Madison said that “the censorial power is in the people over the government and not the government over the people.” His words ring true for Europeans today. Europeans do not require middlemen to interpret what is best for them. The president of Europe must be accountable to Europeans at the ballot box.

Mr Declan Ganley.. er he wants a federal Europe...so what is he doing campaigning against Lisbon

Spiritoftheseventies

prinz wrote: »

Sure..



Mr Declan Ganley.. er he wants a federal Europe...so what is he doing campaigning against Lisbon

It seems to me that we as a nation under foreign rule for quite a long part of our history are naturally a bit suspicious of this treaty. Its part of our subconscious. I think its all about better the devil you know. This treaty has shown that as much as we like to think we are Europeans we dont really know much about it.
Sure we have benefited but still EC is seen as a faceless bureaucracy. Everything is taken at face value.'
So lisbon treaty debate has been good in that way. We have at least questioned what is going on.

prinz

bayviewclose wrote: »

It seems to me that we as a nation under foreign rule for quite a long part of our history are naturally a bit suspicious of this treaty. Its part of our subconscious. I think its all about better the devil you know. This treaty has shown that as much as we like to think we are Europeans we dont really know much about it.
Sure we have benefited but still EC is seen as a faceless bureaucracy. Everything is taken at face value.'
So lisbon treaty debate has been good in that way. We have at least questioned what is going on.

I would agree with this yes, but I don't agree that the Lisbon Treaty is bringing any step towards federalism, if it did Ganley would be supporting it. The German constitutional court have already ruled on it, and they know a few things about federalism. It's a redundant reason to vote no. But yes, the Lisbon debate has been good in getting people to inform themselves in what is going on in Europe, including myself.

Spiritoftheseventies

prinz wrote: »

I would agree with this yes, but I don't agree that the Lisbon Treaty is bringing any step towards federalism, if it did Ganley would be supporting it. The German constitutional court have already ruled on it, and they know a few things about federalism. It's a redundant reason to vote no. But yes, the Lisbon debate has been good in getting people to inform themselves in what is going on in Europe, including myself.

Yes I think what most people are worried about is the speed and direction with which Europe is going forward. And as an island off the mainland we are used to voting to people who are accountable.
What is worrying is that we just don't know who is at the heart of the main decisions. I would like to know who sits on the European Court of Justice and have we any representatives on it.
End of the day, there is still to much ambiguity going on here.

prinz

bayviewclose wrote: »

I would like to know who sits on the European Court of Justice and have we any representatives on it.

http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/ knock yourself out.

Everything can be found out. The EU can seem faceless at times, but it can all be explained.

Looks like we have two, Aindrias Ó Caoimh on the Court of Justice and Kevin O'Higgins on the Court of First Instance.

Sam Vimes

bayviewclose wrote: »

No. O Leary's sole MO is to make money. Treaty seeks to improve conditions of workers. As such if O' Leary is pushing for yes vote, something is up

No you kind of missed the point there. The treaty doesn't do a whole lot for workers rights. People say it's good for workers to counter the socialist's claims that it's bad for workers

But if the treaty is good for workers and MOL supports it anyway, there must be a lot of money in it for Ryanair. Since they employ over 1000 people in Ireland, run thousands of flights into and out of the country and pay corporation tax here that'll be great for the economy. Fair play to him

K-9

bayviewclose wrote: »

again O leary is not pro worker. And this treaty if charter is to be believed is pro workers rights. So marry the two. O Leary voting yes, The treaty being pro workers.

So if SIPTU, ICTU and the INO are for it, it must be anti Business?

Nothing to do with the main groups who represent the vast majority of Irish people on different issues agreeing?

Your point would have logic except the vast majority of bodies here who often don't agree on anything, agree on Lisbon.

r_obric

my stance is simple, i want a change of government, and in the long run i dont see whats wrong with a more united europe, i have yet to hear a reason as to that being a bad thing

there are changes that need to be made that are not,
there are people that need to be held responsilbe that are not
there are hard decisions that need to be taken that are not
now is the time to get the finances, the politicians, the departments, the state and semi state organisations of this country right, but they are not trying to change the wastefull culture that exists within them

If i knew there was a general election coming then i would vote yes, because i would then have my say about this current gov, but this friday they are getting a no from me and it it goes against the opinions of people whom i respect and disrespect,

protest vote to get them out, simple as that for me

for me it cant really get any worse if the leave, but it can get a whole lot better when all the pals and cosy relationships are broken up