Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?
Comments
-
Source?Freeborn John wrote: »QMV is used very frequently in the EU. Ireland has certainly been outvoted in numerous issues (e.g. rules on art auction houses).0 -
Quote:
Why is so much of this debate so critical of the 'no' opioion.
Because much of the "no" opinion is based on either groundless fears or outright lies.
Yes but the Yes camp keeps coming out with this. Yes we have assurances on the abortion, Neutrality and taxation but it seems a very lazy exercise by the Pro treaty camp to sell treaty on it.
When are pro treaty lobby actually going to get their campaign up and going. So far its been one postcard and a few celebrities adding their names to it.
Are they going to leave till a month before vote when they know there wont be a proper debate on it.
Debate the treaty and debate it properly0 -
FutureTaoiseach wrote: »Encouraging that in polls conducted for the yes camp has the no vote rising to 35%. Apparently, 35% are determined to vote no, with slightly more determined to vote yes, and the remaining 25% persuadable. We are making progress with our message that Lisbon is bad for Ireland and bad for Europe. This is not going to be the slam-dunk the political elites think.
Since you're one of the noted political elite, what did you expect before this pole? You elitist with your elitism and your sinister undertones, always out to ruin the common man!
Am I doing it right? Anyone you disagree with you disparage, that's the correct way to use this tactic isn't it? Who ever said Gutter Politics 101 doesn't have a place in every political campaign?!0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9868
Freeborn John wrote: »QMV is used very frequently in the EU. Ireland has certainly been outvoted in numerous issues (e.g. rules on art auction houses). It would be the norm under Lisbon, not just in minor matters of common market rules, but in almost the entire range of politically sensitive fields with just a few exceptions for foreign policy and defence. With the irish representatives having just 1 to 2% of the votes in the EU Parliament and Council of Ministers, this would be very bad for irish democracy.
I am correct in guessing that google was not very helpful to you on this matter?0 -
bayviewclose wrote: »Quote:
Why is so much of this debate so critical of the 'no' opioion.
Because much of the "no" opinion is based on either groundless fears or outright lies.
Yes but the Yes camp keeps coming out with this. Yes we have assurances on the abortion, Neutrality and taxation but it seems a very lazy exercise by the Pro treaty camp to sell treaty on it.
When are they actually going to get their campaign up. So far its been one postcard and a few celebrities.
Are they going to leave till a month before vote when they know there wont be a proper debate on it.
Debate the treaty and debate it properly
I wholeheartedly agree, the yes campaign is a shambles because the government is useless. Knowing that, it's your responsibilty to educate yourself instead of voting down something that will effect 500 million people because Brian Cowen is an idiot0 -
Advertisement
-
Ireland has never used its veto as far as I know. Can anyone confirm that?
The answer is who cares? While our home grown politicians take us ever further down the route to our soon to be third world status, we concern ourselves about how many angels are dancing on the pin head of the veto.
Please excuse my directness, but it really doesn't matter. Of course it would be nice for the EU if everyone voted for Lisbon, but either way they will plough on with it regardless, as democracy is not something in vogue in the EU.
Democracy is merely a means to the ends as wanted by the EU elites, and we, the common people, really are not relevant to them as they are much too elevated and important to worry or concern themselves with what we think.
The most wonderful thing about it is the language which George Orwell would have a field day with. We are told the EU is a democratic institution when no one (except the pesky irish who have to be told to vote a second time, and if we don't obey we'll be sent to bed without any supper), is allowed to vote. We are told it's more "democratic" that our politicians vote on our behalf as it's too complicated for the poor little miinds of the other 500 000 000 europeans to worrytheir pretty little heads about.
Am I cynical? Perhaps, but perhaps also we need more cynics and less credulous citizens to examine where we are being led.0 -
bokspring71 wrote: »Please excuse my directness, but it really doesn't matter. Of course it would be nice for the EU if everyone voted for Lisbon, but either way they will plough on with it regardless, as democracy is not something in vogue in the EU.
Democracy is merely a means to the ends as wanted by the EU elites, and we, the common people, really are not relevant to them as they are much too elevated and important to worry or concern themselves with what we think.
rumour, posts like this are why the yes side are so critical of the no opinion, it's mostly based on fantasy0 -
The problem with cynicism is that it leads to inaction.bokspring71 wrote: »Am I cynical? Perhaps, but perhaps also we need more cynics and less credulous citizens to examine where we are being led.0 -
marco_polo wrote: »I am correct in guessing that google was not very helpful to you on this matter?
I hope he does find something. It would give some basis for his belief.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
bokspring71 wrote: »and "posts like this" are why the no side is so sceptical, with the arguments avoided and mere rhetoric employed!
What you just posted is not an argument, it's a conspiracy theory with no basis in fact. I feel no more compulsion to go into detail on this than I would if you had said that the treaty will make Brian Cowen the president of the moon0 -
SkepticOne wrote: »The problem with cynicism is that it leads to inaction.
thats true, and the perfect example of so many being cynical of our own domestic political scene, and no action being taken to change it.
Cynicism has, in the past, led to action eventually. or at least action has come after a period of cynicism.0 -
Freeborn John wrote: »I provide the example of 50 years of the Stormont parliament ruling over two national communities in Northern Ireland. It was modelled on the 'mother of parliaments'. But was it democratic? And if not, why not.
That's a lousy comparison.
First, it reminds us that states within their present borders are not homogenous, which undermines your basic premise that what are sometimes regarded as nation-states are the best democratic unit -- because they are not truly nation-states.
Second, it shows us that simple majority rule is not assuredly a good thing, that there might be a need for a more sophisticated system to guarantee that minorities are not oppressed (NI seems to have a more promising model now than it had in the first 50 Stormont years). Similarly, the EU has arrangements in place or proposed to protect the interests of minorities.
Third, it should be remembered that minorities in the EU are not generally characterised by nationality or ethnicity. For example, environmentalists are a minority; socialists are a minority; hard right-wingers are a minority; racists are a minority.0 -
What you just posted is not an argument, it's a conspiracy theory with no basis in fact.
to observe that no one in europe, with the exception of ireland, was allowed to vote on Lisbon is not a "conspiracy theory", it's a fact. Again your post is full of rhetoric and appears to avoid the facts.0 -
marco_polo wrote: »I am correct in guessing that google was not very helpful to you on this matter?
No. I know what i am speaking about before i make my posts.
In case you want a second source, please see page 65 of the following:
http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book457pdf?.pdf0 -
QUOTE]My what now? Who did I insult, and how much are they paying me? [/QUOTE]
Wow, there is an almost palatable sense of entitlement, akin to the notable entitlement of our current leaders!! Do you write on the side for news of the world perhaps?0 -
bokspring71 wrote: »to observe that no one in europe, with the exception of ireland, was allowed to vote on Lisbon is not a "conspiracy theory", it's a fact. Again your post is full of rhetoric and appears to avoid the facts.
The decision on whether to have a referendum or not was entirely up to the national parliaments, the EU had no say over it whatsoever. Most other countries in Europe have little or no history of having referenda for such things. In the history of the EU, countries have had (or planned) Referenda 15.8% of the time they could have.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055628925
I'm afraid it's you who's avoiding the facts0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9868
Freeborn John wrote: »
Fail, it appears it was not even used in this instance.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2006-01-24c.1142.5During negotiation of the directive, the UK Government secured a number of concessions to protect the UK market. The first was the cap on royalties, at €12,500. The original proposal contained no such cap, which would potentially have penalised our successful artists and damaged our art market by diverting sales.
The second key concession that the UK successfully negotiated concerned the length of time for which the resale right applies. In many member states which already have the resale right this lasts for the full term of copyright protection in the work of art; that is, the life of the artist and 70 years after his death. Our current implementation of this directive only delivers the right to living artists as that is what will stimulate creativity. This is possible as a result of a derogation we secured permitting the UK to delay application of the right to works by deceased artists until at least 2010. We also have the option of making a case to the European Commission for a further extension until 2012. Works by deceased artists make up the most important and valuable sector of the UK art market and it is vital that we allow the market as much time to adjust to the changes as possible. This was a hard-fought concession for the UK. We are using our derogation and will make a case for its extension.
The final concession that the UK secured was an obligation on the European Commission to enter negotiations to make the relevant article of the Berne convention compulsory worldwide. Unsurprisingly, to date, that has been unsuccessful. In view of that we will seize the opportunity of the scheduled review of the directive to press for the derogation for deceased artists to be made permanent.Freeborn John wrote: »No. I know what i am speaking about before i make my posts.
In case you want a second source, please see page 65 of the following:
http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book457pdf?.pdf
Thanks that also nicely shows that a consensus was reached ultimately rather than the need to use QMV.0 -
The decision on whether to have a referendum or not was entirely up to the national parliaments, the EU had no say over it whatsoever. Most other countries in Europe have little or no history of having referenda for such things. In the history of the EU , countries have had (or planned) Referenda 15.8% of the time they could have.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055628925
I'm afraid it's you who's avoiding the facts
I agree it was up to national parliaments. Its great that you judge that because "most" other countries in the EU have little or no history, of having referenda, then thats allright then.
I'm not sure what your argument actually is. Are you arguing that, because you judge that "most" other countries in the EU have little or no history, of having referenda, then those who did want to have referenda should not have been allowed to hold them? Or that none should be allowed to have them?
Or are you arguing that it is, in fact, more democratic to not let the almost 500 000 000 people of the EU to be allowed to vote on the issue of Lisbon?0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 9868
bokspring71 wrote: »I agree it was up to national parliaments. Its great that you judge that because "most" other countries in the EU have little or no history, of having referenda, then thats allright then.
I'm not sure what your argument actually is. Are you arguing that, because you judge that "most" other countries in the EU have little or no history, of having referenda, then those who did want to have referenda should not have been allowed to hold them? Or that none should be allowed to have them?
Or are you arguing that it is, in fact, more democratic to not let the almost 500 000 000 people of the EU to be allowed to vote on the issue of Lisbon?
And the most democratic way of all would be that if 250,000,001 were in favour then we should all go along with the decision.0 -
That seems to be referring to what became directive 2001/84/EC. Do you have a link that actually states that QMV was used in the decision to implement the directive?Freeborn John wrote: »
As a matter of interest, has the art auction house business in the UK imploded since that Directive was introduced eight years ago?0 -
bayviewclose wrote: »I think what this treaty does if anything else is question how we view our role within the EU. As said before EU i think is fairly strong on legislation but I would have issues with it.
But have we been "too" dependant on Europe.
Did it lead us to over borrow.
Do we need to go back to basics and learn to be self sufficient again and become strong in the ways of self sufficiency.
Is the Switzerland model a way forward to us.
I think we need to address self sufficiency. I also think we are destined to become a political and economical backwater for the near to mid term with or without Lisbon.
Voting for Lisbon will only mean we do not have the culling of our political class that is required to fundamentally change the way we do business. Voting for Lisbon will mean our politicians will go to Brussels and beg, then come home and say what a marvelous job they have done. Increasing our dependence on these incompetent people.
Voting against Lisbon will speed up our demise from where we percieve ourselves to be. It will put us in isolation but are we not destined to go there anyway being dependent on our 3MEP's out of some 700?
Sometimes to fix things you need to knock the whole thing down and start again. Ireland instituitionally would apppear to be in this position. We have forgotten what self sufficiency means and rely on larger countries like the UK France & Germany to solve these issues. Somewhat like a child who always runs to Mammy.
As regards the Swiss model, it is certainly works for them. They are however serious dependable people. Additionally all of the men in the country are in their army from 18 to 45 and they must do 1-2 years of military service. Personally I do not think this is a bad thing as it might create some national pride instead of the 'me fein' attitude but I think this is a step to far right now, perhaps when we mature more as a country and have taken a few knocks! In another century maybe?0 -
bokspring71 wrote: »I agree it was up to national parliaments. Its great that you judge that because "most" other countries in the EU have little or no history, of having referenda, then thats allright then.
I'm not sure what your argument actually is. Are you arguing that, because you judge that "most" other countries in the EU have little or no history, of having referenda, then those who did want to have referenda should not have been allowed to hold them? Or that none should be allowed to have them?
Or are you arguing that it is, in fact, more democratic to not let the almost 500 000 000 people of the EU to be allowed to vote on the issue of Lisbon?
Every country in Europe was "allowed" hold a referendum, the governments of the 26 other countries decided not to. That is a matter for those governments and their people, not the EU and certainly not the Irish people. If they don't like their government being allowed to ratify treaties they should campaign for their system of government to be changed.
I'm arguing that the countries of Europe have a system of representative democracy where their governments make decisions for them. Having governments vote for treaties is by far the norm in Europe, those governments, and ours, make decisions every day that have ramifications 100 times those of the Lisbon treaty and the world does not collapse. There is nothing unusual or conspiratorial about yet another treaty being ratified through the parliament in those countries. The only reason Ireland is having a referendum is because of the Crotty judgement which means to change the constitution requires a referendum.
The only reason a referendum is being demanded at all is the amount of lies that have been spread about the treaty and that is why it was not put to a referendum n those countries imo. It's a 300 page document full of complex legal language. It is best if such a document is decided on by people whose job it is to understand such documents and to look out for the interests of their respective countries, not Betty from Mayo who got her opinion from a lie on a poster0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »That's a lousy comparison.
First, it reminds us that states within their present borders are not homogenous, which undermines your basic premise that what are sometimes regarded as nation-states are the best democratic unit -- because they are not truly nation-states.
If communities can be separated geographically into their own nation-states then it is far preferable to what happened in Northern Ireland. This is what allowed the formation of the Irish state.
Northern Ireland is a special case in that the two national communities are living side-by-side with each other in the same streets and towns and therefore cannot easily be separated into their own states. It is however an excellent example of the what happens when you let majoritorian political institutions (such as the EU Parliament) take decisions by majority vote binding on multiple communities. Anyone who thinks giving more powers to the EU parliament is a good idea should carefully consider where 50 years of decision-making by majority at Stormont led to.
The different national communities in Europe are largely separated geographically such that they can have their own nation-states without the need for an undemocratic Stormont-style parliament.P. Breathnach wrote: »Second, it shows us that simple majority rule is not assuredly a good thing, that there might be a need for a more sophisticated system to guarantee that minorities are not oppressed (NI seems to have a more promising model now than it had in the first 50 Stormont years). Similarly, the EU has arrangements in place or proposed to protect the interests of minorities.
The 'more sophisticated system' is called the nation-state. Lisbon undermines that system.P. Breathnach wrote: »Third, it should be remembered that minorities in the EU are not generally characterised by nationality or ethnicity. For example, environmentalists are a minority; socialists are a minority; hard right-wingers are a minority; racists are a minority.
Total junk that has no connection with reality. If what you said was correct then we would see states formed in the world by political persuasion, with a 'socialist state' in one part of the world, an 'environmental state' in another part of the world, etc. with people moving to the one of their choice. In the real world we see nation-states.
People with different political views are still part of the same national community, and agree to live under majority decisions of that community so long as it is held-together by the strong bonds of national solidarity that keep nation-states together in the presence of political controversy. That solidarity exists within nations, but not between nations. When those bonds do not exists (as for example between the Irish and British peoples in the 1920s, or between Hindu and Muslim communities in India / Pakistan, then you will naturally see the different communities each wanting to be governed by their own political institutions.0 -
Freeborn John wrote: »
Hello Freeborn. I assume you pasted this in desperate haste to prove that "QMV is used frequently".
Let's analyse...
This is an article from 1999. 10 years ago. Was that the most recent example you could find of a country being overruled?
Now... let's look at the issue involved. I actually remember when this new law was passed. It was reported on the news as being hugely welcomed by artists. The new rules (which I assume have come into effect) meant that if an artist had sold a painting for a small price, and then a few years later it was sold for a fortune, the original artist was entitled to a small percentage of the re-sale value.
Anyone of a fair mind would surely agree this was a good thing? Why should art dealers and galleries get to keep all the profit from a large increase in value? Should not some of this money go back to the artists, who are often not that well off?
In fact this was yet another example of the EU imposing an ethically right rule on countries which disagreed for minor economic reasons. Should I be more concerned about auction houses profits or for the original artist? This really sounds like overly successful lobbying on someone's part. A maximum 4% level on the re-sale value? Unlikely to make any difference, and I suspect you'll find it hard to find articles saying the UK auction houses have all shut down.
So, if you want to convince me that QMV is dangerous, please try again. This article shows why QMV is a good thing, forcing states to do "the right thing".
Ix.0 -
I think we need to address self sufficiency. I also think we are destined to become a political and economical backwater for the near to mid term with or without Lisbon...
We used to have a policy of self-sufficiency. In those days, we had a motor assembly industry that was inefficient; we had protected "infant industries" that never grew up; we generated electricity from hydro-electric stations and from burning turf; bread was stodgy because we would not import good milling wheat; we failed to produce oranges. We were an economic and political backwater. I'm old enough to remember when one could not buy Mars Bars (and, if they were available, many people could not afford to spend 5d on a confectionery product).
I don't want to go back there.0 -
Hello Freeborn. I assume you pasted this in desperate haste to prove that "QMV is used frequently".
I do not want to get into a discussion of the logic of the art auction rules, but the reason they were proposed by France is that it has a high number of artists that would benefit. Nothing more. Would you think it such a good thing to buy a house, or 2nd hand product of any type, if the original constructor got a slice of every subsequent sale?
The fact is that this is an example of Ireland being outvoted under QMV and obliged to accept something not considered to be contrary to the national interest. And that this would be the norm under Lisbon in almost all policy fields with the blocking threshold raised from 27% to 35% making it more difficult for Ireland 1-2% of the vote to block measures contrary to the wishes of the IRish government or electorate.0 -
Every country in Europe was "allowed" hold a referendum, the governments of the 26 other countries decided not to. That is a matter for those governments and their people, not the EU and certainly not the Irish people. If they don't like their government being allowed to ratify treaties they should campaign for their system of government to be changed.
I'm arguing that the countries of Europe have a system of representative democracy where their governments make decisions for them. Having governments vote for treaties is by far the norm in Europe, those governments, and ours, make decisions every day that have ramifications 100 times those of the Lisbon treaty and the world does not collapse. There is nothing unusual or conspiratorial about yet another treaty being ratified through the parliament in those countries. The only reason Ireland is having a referendum is because of the Crotty judgement which means to change the constitution requires a referendum.
The only reason a referendum is being demanded at all is the amount of lies that have been spread about the treaty and that is why it was not put to a referendum n those countries imo. It's a 300 page document full of complex legal language. It is best if such a document is decided on by people whose job it is to understand such documents and to look out for the interests of their respective countries, not Betty from Mayo who got her opinion from a lie on a poster
thanks for clarifying that.
My position is that I favour democracy and think its more democratic to allow individuals to vote on treaties which give more power away. Your argument seems to be that you don;t like that, and think its better that the people are denied the right to vote and that, somehow, their governments are better placed to decide what the people want withouth asking them.
Additionally, because you judge the document to bee extremely complex, then thats also another reason why people should be denied the right to vote on it.
For me, I'd prefer Betty from Mayo ( whoever she is - I don't know her personally!) rather than reply on most of our elected politicians, to decide on my behalf. call me cynical, but most of out politicians in this country have proved they are either corrup or inept or both, and to suggest that the people in, for example, the UK are happy to give up their vote so that Gordon Brown can whip his MP's into line to force it throught parliament, or the people of italy are similarly delighted to leave it all to Silvio Berlusconi, seems hard to believe.
Of course, as you seem to be advocating a "yes" vote here, it's hard to work out if you believe this as a principle of democracy, or if you are happy to believe it now for the sake of the argument.
To suggest that a system where the MP's are whipped into voting the way the government wants them to vote is as democratic as to ask the people directly, seems an unusual position, but if thats what you believe in then we'll have to agree to disagree.
I'm not frightened of democarcy, and even if the result is inconvenient I'm prepared to put up with it rather than pretend we have democracy through governments who whip their parties into line to force through legislation.
Another interesting thing to ponder is the nature of a representative democracy. the word "representative" is interesting as it used to mean the elected member represented his constituents in parliament. However, this is no longer the case as the elected member now toes the party line, even if that is in direct contrdiction to what his constituents want. Obedience to party is now mor important that representing ones constutuents and, sadly, some think that is democratic.
0 -
Advertisement
-
I think what Sam is saying is basically:
Let Ireland ratify using her own constitutional methods, and afford the same courtesy to all other EU states, with no impositions from anywhere.
You have the right to disagree with other member states ratification methods, you absolutely do not have the right to change them.0
Advertisement