Lisbon 2 The Return!

FoldedShirt

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No it doesn't scare me because the reasons for voting no were, by and large, bullsh!t. I'm glad we got another chance at it and hopefully this time the government will get off their arses and tell people the truth so they stop believing all these lies and misconceptions

At least 33% of people voted no because of conscription, abortion, neutrality, taxation and other non issues. The government now has guarantees that these were never issues and anyone who said otherwise was lying so now that 33% have no reason to vote no.

42% said they voted no because they didn't understand it. They've now had two years to familiarise themselves with it. They don't have to read every line, that's been done by enough people on both dies of the debate and they've pointed out the few contentious issues. These people can no longer use the excuse that they don't understand it so now 77% of no voters have no reason to vote no anymore. In light of that, a second referendum is more than justified

source: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0911/1221039067528.html

You conveniently ignored the reasons given for voting yes that had nothing to with the treaty:

32% It's in Ireland's best interests..... eh how exactly? That's just a cop out. Surely everyone who voted yes would think this (and everyone who voted no would think the opposite). Sounds like a the "I don't understand but will dutifuly do everything Mssrs. Cowen and Kenny say" crowd.

19% Ireland gets a lot of benefits from the EU....... So? Voting No is voting for the status quo. Nobody is leaving the EU.

9% It will help the Irish economy..... About as relevant as a conscripted army of abortionists.

Sam Vimes

FoldedShirt wrote: »

You conveniently ignored the reasons given for voting yes that had nothing to with the treaty:

I know there were reasons for voting yes that had nothing to do with the treaty. I would never suggest otherwise. I'm talking about reasons that have become less valid or completely invalid over time.

FoldedShirt wrote: »

32% It's in Ireland's best interests..... eh how exactly? That's just a cop out. Surely everyone who voted yes would think this (and everyone who voted no would think the opposite). Sounds like a the "I don't understand but will dutifuly do everything Mssrs. Cowen and Kenny say" crowd.

They weren't specific but I think it is in our best interests. That's different to something like neutrality, which was simply a lie. Trusting the politicians' judgement on it might be lazy but it doesn't automatically make them wrong, we live in a representative democracy after all where our leaders make decisions like this for us every day. On the other hand, making the decision based on neutrality does automatically make them wrong because it was a non issue

FoldedShirt wrote: »

9% It will help the Irish economy..... About as relevant as a conscripted army of abortionists.

Who's to say it won't? Again a reason that's just as valid as it was before, unlike the no reasons. The abortion and conscription issues were lies but it might well help our economy.

FoldedShirt wrote: »

19% Ireland gets a lot of benefits from the EU....... So? Voting No is voting for the status quo. Nobody is leaving the EU.

The status quo is not ok. If it was they wouldn't have spent 5 years and millions drafting a treaty to change it. They don't do these things for the craic.

thelordofcheese

uprising wrote: »

Coming from thelordofcheese who makes vidja games, haha

Yes, i work in one of the toughest coding professions, what of it?

At least i'm not still clinging to the oh-so-deep teenage slogan of "all politicians are crooks", which is just fucking lazy thinking.

Sam Vimes

I thought I'd put links to responses to the major no arguments all together in one post with a short summary of each to prevent us having to repeat ourselves. So here it is

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61285174&postcount=199
Voting no to Lisbon will not get rid of Fianna Fail. The Lisbon treaty has nothing to do with Fianna Fail and our crappy politicians should not be made a European issue

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61285470&postcount=209
Anything that currently requires a referendum will still require a referendum and anything else has to be ratified by the Dail. It is not "self amending"

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61284547#post61284547
An analogy to show the ridiculousness of the argument that being asked to vote again is undemocratic and is enough reason in itself to vote no

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61285259#post61285259
By far the normal practice in the EU is ratification through parliament. Referendums have only been used 15.8% of the times they could have been. The fact that other countries did not have referendums is neither unusual nor any of our business. It's an internal matter for those countries alone

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61285634&postcount=215
In the real world people don't drop an entire 300 page document that took 5 years to write. Instead they find out what parts people object to, handle their objections and/or settle their fears and ask them to reconsider. It's not undemocratic, it's the essense of democracy.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61285689#post61285689
If you don't understand the treaty, ask people that do and try your best to understand it by reading opinion and analysis. You do not have to read the whole treaty yourself. And if you still don't understand it, then don't vote

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61287967&postcount=302
Ireland had two referendums on divorce. The first was overwhelmingly rejected and the second passed with a margin of 50.28%. Do you think it was undemocratic to have a second referendum and, more importantly, do you think that divorce should always and forever be illegal in Ireland because it was rejected in a referendum?

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61287396#post61287396
The fact that we were asked to vote again doesn't "scare me" because the reasons for voting no were, by and large, bullsh!t. 77% of people no longer have a reason to vote no so a second referendum is more than justified

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61289006&postcount=311
With the divorce referendum time passed which made it "ok" to hold another one. But the above point shows that 77% of people now no longer have a valid reasons to vote no. Different circumstances but both are a valid reason to hold a second referendum. The point being, it's not as simple as "no means no"

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61288273&postcount=304
Voting no does not mean nothing changes. Rejecting the treaty for no good reason (see 77% have no valid reason) will effect the goodwill shown towards Ireland in the EU. It shouldn't but it could. If we could explain why we're rejecting it so that it could be renegotiated it would be ok but we can't do that, we're rejecting it mostly because we think it's too big to read, not realising that we can get a good enough understanding of the issues by reading opinion and analysis, just like how we read a science book rather than perform every experiment in it ourselves. People don't like when 5 years of their work is shot down by people who aren't even bothered to find out what they're saying or who refuse to let go of lies they heard about it

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61276383&postcount=367
No change is not necessarily good. The French and the Germans say that "no Lisbon means no enlargement" which I'm sure many are for. Also, currently any major issues such as a previous one with expenses abuse can take up to 4 years to be fixed because it has to wait until an election. Lisbon fixes that problem. Currently the council can meet in private and do not have to show how they came to decisions. Lisbon forces them to meet in the open. And finally, the status quo is not ok. If it was they wouldn't have spent 5 years and millions drafting a treaty to change it. They don't do these things for the craic.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60775332&postcount=57
10 reasons to vote yes to lisbon

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61254481&postcount=740
I'd also point out the form of the people who are against the treaty. They've been against every treaty since the inception of the EU

thelordofcheese

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I thought I'd put links to responses to the major no arguments all together in one post with a short summary of each to prevent us having to repeat ourselves. So here it is

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61285174&postcount=199
Voting no to Lisbon will not get rid of Fianna Fail. The Lisbon treaty has nothing to do with Fianna Fail and our crappy politicians should not be made a European issue

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61285470&postcount=209
Anything that currently requires a referendum will still require a referendum and anything else has to be ratified by the Dail. It is not "self amending"

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61284547#post61284547
An analogy to show the ridiculousness of the argument that being asked to vote again is undemocratic and is enough reason in itself to vote no

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61285259#post61285259
By far the normal practice in the EU is ratification through parliament. Referendums have only been used 15.8% of the times they could have been. The fact that other countries did not have referendums is neither unusual nor any of our business. It's an internal matter for those countries alone

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61285634&postcount=215
In the real world people don't drop an entire 300 page document that took 5 years to write. Instead they find out what parts people object to, handle their objections and/or settle their fears and ask them to reconsider. It's not undemocratic, it's the essense of democracy.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61287967&postcount=302
Ireland had two referendums on divorce. The first was overwhelmingly rejected and the second passed with a margin of 50.28%. Do you think it was undemocratic to have a second referendum and, more importantly, do you think that divorce should always and forever be illegal in Ireland because it was rejected in a referendum?

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61285689#post61285689
If you don't understand the treaty, ask people that do and try your best to understand it by reading opinion and analysis. You do not have to read the whole treaty yourself. And if you still don't understand it, then don't vote

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61287396#post61287396
The fact that we were asked to vote again doesn't "scare me" because the reasons for voting no were, by and large, bullsh!t. 77% of people no longer have a reason to vote no so a second referendum is more than justified

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60775332&postcount=57
10 reasons to vote yes to lisbon

This will have one of two effects,
1] debate will be enriched and actual facts used
2] it'll be ignored and somone will, within 2 pages, make the bullshit claim about self-amending treaties.

my money is on option 2.

Sam Vimes

thelordofcheese wrote: »

This will have one of two effects,
1] debate will be enriched and actual facts used
2] it'll be ignored and somone will, within 2 pages, make the bullshit claim about self-amending treaties.

my money is on option 2.

Mine too, which is why we'll just keep linking them back and save the wear on our keyboards

thelordofcheese

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Mine too, which is why we'll just keep linking them back and save the wear on our keyboards

Ohh... i suppose that's better than my solution of threatening to kill a kitten everytime someone did that.

Wibbs

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ireland had two referendums on divorce. The first was overwhelmingly rejected and the second passed with a margin of 50.28%. Do you think it was undemocratic to have a second referendum and, more importantly, do you think that divorce should always and forever be illegal in Ireland because it was rejected in a referendum?

There was damn near a decade between the two referenda. In those intervening years there was enough time for a change in social trends and feelings(slight though it was). Regardless of the pros and cons of the treaty itself this example is not comparing like with like.

In this case the treaty was rejected by the people of the country. Fine whether we think that right or wrong, it was democratically rejected. End of. Luckily we have a legal precedence that ensures any changes to the constitution require a referendum. Other nations in the EU had no such democratic rights. I suspect if they had more would have rejected it.

I like Europe. I think we should be more involved in it, not less. I would personally not like us to go down the UK route, but I do have serious issues with the democratic workings of the EU and this treaty and the subsequent bullying and dismissal of one of the states rejection of the missive from on high píssed me right off. And there was bullying and dismissal, both publicly and behind closed doors. It really does smack of "well we didn't like how you voted first time out so make sure you vote the right way this time, or else...".

I voted yes first time out. This time I am not so sure.

Sam Vimes

Wibbs wrote: »

There was damn near a decade between the two referenda. In those intervening years there was enough time for a change in social trends and feelings(slight though it was). Regardless of the pros and cons of the treaty itself this example is not comparing like with like.

With the divorce referendum time passed. If you look further down my list you'll see where I show that 77% of people now no longer have a valid reasons to vote no. Different circumstances but both are a valid reason to hold a second referendum. The point being, it's not as simple as "no means no"

edit: This point has now been edited into my list

K-9

TriceMarie wrote: »

The Workers Party are against it too as far as I know

No surprise there. SF, the Workers and Socialist Parties have been against every single EU Referenda!

x MarK x wrote: »

Exactly. Are we now afraid to say no to the EU for fear they can hurt us with the powers they hold, or do we give in like cowards, and ironically, give them even more power over us? Article 48, should have you all very weary, once ratified, the treaty becomes self amending, in other words, they wont need your imput any more, the treaty can be altered without you having any say. HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why do people keep repeating this Article 48 thing? Can they not accept they are wrong?

Wibbs wrote: »

In this case the treaty was rejected by the people of the country. Fine whether we think that right or wrong, it was democratically rejected. End of. Luckily we have a legal precedence that ensures any changes to the constitution require a referendum. Other nations in the EU had no such democratic rights. I suspect if they had more would have rejected it.

I like Europe. I think we should be more involved in it, not less. I would personally not like us to go down the UK route, but I do have serious issues with the democratic workings of the EU and this treaty and the subsequent bullying and dismissal of one of the states rejection of the missive from on high píssed me right off. And there was bullying and dismissal, both publicly and behind closed doors. It really does smack of "well we didn't like how you voted first time out so make sure you vote the right way this time, or else...".

I voted yes first time out. This time I am not so sure.

The assurances say it wasn't bullying. There are guarentees AGAIN on Neutrality and abortion and new ones on Taxation and Workers Rights. A lot of people voted No based on concerns on these areas. Surely getting assurances on peoples concerns is a good thing?

Obviously, they can't get assurances on everybodies concerns because that would mean we'd have to leave the EU to satisfy a few nuts.

marco_polo

Wibbs wrote: »

There was damn near a decade between the two referenda. In those intervening years there was enough time for a change in social trends and feelings(slight though it was). Regardless of the pros and cons of the treaty itself this example is not comparing like with like.

In this case the treaty was rejected by the people of the country. Fine whether we think that right or wrong, it was democratically rejected. End of. Luckily we have a legal precedence that ensures any changes to the constitution require a referendum. Other nations in the EU had no such democratic rights. I suspect if they had more would have rejected it.
I like Europe. I think we should be more involved in it, not less. I would personally not like us to go down the UK route, but I do have serious issues with the democratic workings of the EU and this treaty and the subsequent bullying and dismissal of one of the states rejection of the missive from on high píssed me right off. And there was bullying and dismissal, both publicly and behind closed doors. It really does smack of "well we didn't like how you voted first time out so make sure you vote the right way this time, or else...".

I voted yes first time out. This time I am not so sure.

I keep hearing the suggested inferiority of representative democracy over direct democracy without seeing any real evidence that this is the case. For effective direct democracy it is essential (not meerly would be nice) that citizens inform themselves fully of the issues at hand, otherwise what is the point.

For whatever these things are worth, this suggests that many of of EU partners are not suffering from too greatly from oppression despite the suggestions to the contary (In fairness we are not doing too badly ourselves either).

http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm

tolosenc

Wibbs wrote: »

There was damn near a decade between the two referenda. In those intervening years there was enough time for a change in social trends and feelings(slight though it was).

As long as the proponents of a referendum believe that sufficient time has passed for the opinion of the electorate to have changed sufficiently to overturn the result, then there is nothing wrong with re-running a vote, wheter it takes 10 years or 10 days.

And, this is not directed at you Wibbs, a previous poster said we are being "FORCED" to vote again. Nonsense. Abstain should you wish.

Wibbs wrote: »

In this case the treaty was rejected by the people of the country. Fine whether we think that right or wrong, it was democratically rejected.

Yes.

Wibbs wrote: »

End of.

Why?

Wibbs wrote: »

Luckily we have a legal precedence that ensures any changes to the constitution require a referendum. Other nations in the EU had no such democratic rights. I suspect if they had more would have rejected it.

See here. Suspicion of what may have happened based on unprecedented methods of ratification is a little silly, no?

Wibbs wrote: »

I voted yes first time out. This time I am not so sure.

What part of the treaty have you subsequently taken issue with?

KnifeWRENCH

Voted No the first time.
I'm undecided as to how I'll vote next time. I want to see what changes have been made before making up my mind.

I completely ignored Libertas and Coir the first time around and will do so again if confronted with their bull**** again.

Sam Vimes

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

Voted No the first time.
I'm undecided as to how I'll vote next time. I want to see what changes have been made before making up my mind.

I completely ignored Libertas and Coir the first time around and will do so again if confronted with their bull**** again.

The only change that has been made is the way the commissioners are dealt with. The other guarantees were just to reassure people that abortion, taxation, neutrality, conscription etc were not issues in the treaty because some people such as Libertas and Coir said they were

Why did you vote no last time?

PrivateEye

Whatever about the suited blokes on the bus I heard proclaim they were voting Yes merely because Joe Higgins and Sinn Féin want a No vote, I'll vote No because Daniel Cohn-Bendit wants a Yes vote!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Cohn-Bendit

Sam Vimes

PrivateEye wrote: »

Whatever about the suited blokes on the bus I heard proclaim they were voting Yes merely because Joe Higgins and Sinn Féin want a No vote, I'll vote No because Daniel Cohn-Bendit wants a Yes vote!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Cohn-Bendit

Just because someone else has a ridiculous reason to vote yes doesn't mean you should endorse a ridiculous reason to vote no. No?

i57dwun4yb1pt8

K-9 wrote: »

What part of No and No again do you not understand?

Even many committed Yes voters would vote No on a 3rd Referendum.

I seem to understand NO better than the EU and the Gov.

and you reckon the yes voters will turn tail on a 3rd vote ?

so, it all comes clear now
thats when democratic rights are trampled , the third time ?

yesman thought process :
the first vote is a test ? -
'stupid idiot no voters , better get it right next time blah blah, waffle , winge '

second is the real vote , -
'oh my god its no again , oh well thats me told '

but a third is dictatorship ? -
'WHAAA - we have to vote again ? oh i'm voting no this time , democracy must reign'

are you listening to your own crap here ?

Sam Vimes

DaDumTish wrote: »

I seem to understand NO better than the EU and the Gov.

and you reckon the yes voters will turn tail on a 3rd vote ?

so, it all comes clear now
thats when democratic rights are trampled , the third time ?

yesman thought process :
the first vote is a test ? -
'stupid idiot no voters , better get it right next time blah blah, waffle , winge '

second is the real vote , -
'oh my god its no again , oh well thats me told '

but a third is dictatorship ? -
'WHAAA - we have to vote again ? oh i'm voting no this time , democracy must reign'

are you listening to your own crap here ?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61288678&postcount=306


http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthrea...7#post61284547
An analogy to show the ridiculousness of the argument that being asked to vote again is undemocratic and is enough reason in itself to vote no


http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost....&postcount=302
Ireland had two referendums on divorce. The first was overwhelmingly rejected and the second passed with a margin of 50.28%. Do you think it was undemocratic to have a second referendum and, more importantly, do you think that divorce should always and forever be illegal in Ireland because it was rejected in a referendum?

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthrea...6#post61287396
The fact that we were asked to vote again doesn't "scare me" because the reasons for voting no were, by and large, bullsh!t. 77% of people no longer have a reason to vote no so a second referendum is more than justified

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost....&postcount=311
With the divorce referendum time passed which made it "ok" to hold another one. But the above point shows that 77% of people now no longer have a valid reasons to vote no. Different circumstances but both are a valid reason to hold a second referendum. The point being, it's not as simple as "no means no"


The point he's making is that this time around, everyone will be far more informed on the treaty and will be able to form a valid opinion not based on misconceptions and lies (hopefully). This referendum will actually be the will of the people (hopefully) instead of the wil of Coir and Libertas who lied to people to make them vote the way they wanted. Right now there is justification for another referendum but, assuming the next one isn't based on misconceptions, there will be no justification for a third

KnifeWRENCH

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The only change that has been made is the way the commissioners are dealt with. The other guarantees were just to reassure people that abortion, taxation, neutrality, conscription etc were not issues in the treaty because some people such as Libertas and Coir said they were

Why did you vote no last time?

Actually, the way commissioners were dealt with was one of the reasons I voted No. I'll definitely be looking to see what changes have been made there. I knew that abortion, conscription and taxation had nothing to do with it. Neutrality I was a little more iffy about; I really don't see why the Solidarity and Mutual Assistance Clauses are necessary.

Also, I'll admit I'm pretty skeptical about the EU in general. I'm not convinced that strong EU integration is the best way to go.

K-9

DaDumTish wrote: »

no they wont, they will be fcuked .

100%

and yes we all know the other partys want a yes vote ,
youll get it when FF are gone .

DaDumTish wrote: »

I seem to understand NO better than the EU and the Gov.

and you reckon the yes voters will turn tail on a 3rd vote ?

so, it all comes clear now
thats when democratic rights are trampled , the third time ?

yesman thought process :
the first vote is a test ? -
'stupid idiot no voters , better get it right next time blah blah, waffle , winge '

second is the real vote , -
'oh my god its no again , oh well thats me told '

but a third is dictatorship ? -
'WHAAA - we have to vote again ? oh i'm voting no this time , democracy must reign'

are you listening to your own crap here ?

LOLZ!

No voters want a third vote.

No voters don't want a second vote!

Sam Vimes

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

Actually, the way commissioners were dealt with was one of the reasons I voted No. I'll definitely be looking to see what changes have been made there. I knew that abortion, conscription and taxation had nothing to do with it. Neutrality I was a little more iffy about; I really don't see why the Solidarity and Mutual Assistance Clauses are necessary.

http://www.generationyes.ie/2009/06/29/338/
"Commissioner – The concern most cited by the Irish was the loss of a commissioner. A decision in the European Council in December 2008 made sure that Ireland, and every other member state, will permanently keep a commissioner."

Neutrality is not effected. It's one of the guarantees.
"Security and defence – The guarantees enforce the Union’s respect for the Irish policy of military neutrality. They also confirm that the Treaty of Lisbon does not provide for a European Army, or for conscription to any military formation whatsoever."

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

Also, I'll admit I'm pretty skeptical about the EU in general. I'm not convinced that strong EU integration is the best way to go.

That is the only valid reason I've seen anyone put forward against voting yes. What's your alternative?

marco_polo

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

Actually, the way commissioners were dealt with was one of the reasons I voted No. I'll definitely be looking to see what changes have been made there. I knew that abortion, conscription and taxation had nothing to do with it. Neutrality I was a little more iffy about; I really don't see why the Solidarity and Mutual Assistance Clauses are necessary.

Many of the other countries are strongly in favour of such increased coopreation on defense, and it in fairness probably wasn't something our negotiaters were overly keen on or at least indifferent to. As long as our Neutrality is unaffected I don't see the problem really, as many of our fellow members state have had some form of millitary alliances outside the EU framework for years , be it NATO etc.

Also, I'll admit I'm pretty skeptical about the EU in general. I'm not convinced that strong EU integration is the best way to go.

That is a perfectly valid reason to vote No.

MaGrOtTeN

Wibbs wrote: »

Regardless of the pros and cons of the treaty itself this example is not comparing like with like.

In this case the treaty was rejected by the people of the country. Fine whether we think that right or wrong, it was democratically rejected. End of. Luckily we have a legal precedence that ensures any changes to the constitution require a referendum.

It really does smack of "well we didn't like how you voted first time out so make sure you vote the right way this time, or else...".

It is well worth comparing with the divorce referendum. What difference does it make if it took 10 years to pass, it did in the end. Just goes to show how backwards this country really is.

I don't think this decision should ever have been put on Ireland's head. People are venting their anti-federalist concerns in completely the wrong sectors. Why should it be the 'End Of?' Because you are afraid a so-called EU bully? Do you have any idea how much the EU achieves for Ireland?

Why shouldn't we vote on Lisbon tomorrow when most of the NO voters said they weren't informed? If you aren't informed, why vote?

The EU is not saying 'Or Else.' And if there are any consequences I'm sure it will include cut backs in financial assistance and regulation that has been so vital to this country, that we will destroy ourselves without.

I will say this again, politicians weren't happy with the outcome because the public didn't do their homework and also believed the Treaty included superficial compromises that never existed!

MaGrOtTeN

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

I'm not convinced that strong EU integration is the best way to go.

Then do something about it before the country goes even further down the toilet

K-9

MaGrOtTeN wrote: »

Then do something about it before the country goes even further down the toilet

How has EU integration made the country go down the toilet?

MaGrOtTeN

It hasn't, quite the opposite infact. EU integration has saved Ireland's ass in many respects.


I'm saying that if you vote NO, without offering any logical alternative to a pro EU future or contributing in some way to a self-governing accountable state, you are just standing by, as Lisbon collapses again, anti-everything, flushing the country down the toilet.

AckwelFoley

x MarK x wrote: »

Lets hear your arguments for a yes vote then Einstein. Wait till i strap myself in. Quantitive, and qualitive arguments please.

Right boss.

1. To maintain our standing in the higher tier of europes decision making process rather than being the dog at the back door waiting for scraps.

2. Try to envisage "Europe" as Irelands father. We in Ireland have being taking billions of euros in funding and grant aid which has been the single greatest significant factor in the developing Irelands infrastructure we have today. I remember the 80's, we didnt pull the money out of our own pocket. Much of it was given to is in order for us to become a more educated workforce less dependant on Agri business and internationally more attractive to inward investment from companies seeking a more educated workforce. The country is now in financial difficulties due to the global crisis and but not entirely due to our over dependancy on the construction.. to make an anology, we were in a car that was destined to hit a wall, we were going to hit it one way or the other, however how hard we hit it was our own fault, if we hadnt relyed so much on construction, perhaps we could have had a softer crash.
Anyhow, going back to the europe is irelands father analogy, We are the petulant teenager that has had their education paid for but doesnt want to acknowledge our father in the big bad world, now that we have ran out of money our credit rating has fallen 3 places with banks and most banks really dont want to loan to us, so our father (europe) has stepped in and guarenteed lenders that they will stand over loans given to Irelnad, if europe didnt do this- we'd pay a much higher interest rate on international loans.
Meanwhile - the petulant little Ireland still refuses to acknowledge europes help.

3. Iceland is a small country like Ireland, they are on their knees trying to get into europe now after what the global recession has done to their country.

4.Increased intergration in europe means more decisions can be made to make europe a more efficently running unit. At the moment because of its ever increasing size it is too difficult to make decisions to manage europes economic affairs

5 Jobs. Ireland is a pissant of a country (a country which i love) however on a global scale it is a tiny insignificant country in relative terms. We have no clout. Being a member of the EU we can avail of multi lateral deals with non EU states to bring in foreign investment which is vital to our nation

We as members of the EU attract a huge amount of investment from the USA. WHY? Because we're Oirish and the Yanks love our charm? Bollox no. Its because we are an English speaking nation with a low corperate tax and because of the former, we are a gateway to the european market for US companies.


Now, im too lazy to continue typing, but i will produce another 5 reasons tomorrow and a further 5 the next day, and a further 5 the day after that if need be.


There are many things i dont like about europe, such as their requests that we cease cutting or bogs, and restrictive agri policies however the pros insurmountibly out weigh the negatives of being part of europe.


The bottom line is Irlenad is up **** creek at the moment, and the only paddle we have is the one that being given to us by europe

RandomName2

snyper wrote: »

Right boss.

The bottom line is Ireland is up **** creek at the moment, and the only paddle we have is the one that being given to us by europe

From the looks of it Europe is f****d too. Besides which the 'handouts' had mostly stopped before the recession anyway (on the grounds that we should be PAYING BACK by now). Besides which there is eastern europe which investment will be focused upon.

Besides which we already made ourselves look 'bad' by voting no the first time - it's a bit too late to say 'woops! Please still like us.'

I support a union with Angola in the expectation of a large bail-out for the Irish economy.

hardcore

I'm going to vote No again, maybe I mightnt vote actually as I voted already and we shouldnt be bullied like this into a second referendum.

AckwelFoley

RandomName2 wrote: »

From the looks of it Europe is f****d too. .[/B]

Well, that is the net effect of a global recession. However my point still stands, we are better off being part of a massive ship in rough waters than being on our own in an inflaitable life raft