If Ireland does indeed get bullied into accepting the Lisbon treaty...

BlitzKrieg

SkepticOne wrote: »

I find this frustrating too, but I would argue that we still have to respect that persons right to vote for that party for that reason.

I respect their right to vote, I wont deny their right to vote, they can go in and rinse and repeat it as many times as they want. But if they asked for my opinion on how they voted I would say they are not living up to their democratic responsibilities, and as such it is them that will loose out, not me because they are the ones who lead political parties into the current attitude that they can adopt any policy they want without fear of a backlash from their mandate. It is not the people's responsibility to me or anyone else, it is the responsibility to themselves.

It is impossible to place responsibilities on that person or make them somehow justify their voting decision without undermining the system itself.

I think you are confusing my opinion to some policy I wish to enforce, I have no intention of punishing them or enforcing some justification as the whole point is they will end up punishing themselves without me doing a single thing. (case in point Fianna Fail voters) I am saying this for their sake, that if they fail to remain vigilent someone will (has) take advantage of them.

The point I was making earlier was that I felt what was being reflected in the research about why we voted no seemed to be a reflection of the main "no" campaign groups views rather than the ordinary people.

And my point was that if no movements or parties exist showing the views of these ordinary people then those views will go unheard and you cannot blame the government, or any research for that, if they do not represent their views those views will be ignored. That is their responsibility. It is not up to some psychic to read their minds.

I don't think those people have a responsibility to come forward and form groups to represent their views frustrating though that might be for those on the other side.

THis has nothing to do with the other side, this has to do with them getting what they want, In the case of Lisbon, if people keep voting no but never establish any sort of communication of why they vote no, then the current situation will continue it referendums being handed back with clarifications on the only issues that were communicated. I am not saying this for my benefit, or the benefit of the *yes* campaign, but to those people who you believe the no campaign does not represent, they are only hurting themselves by remaining apathetic.

FutureTaoiseach

oscarBravo wrote: »

Exercising the best judgement possible when voting. That means informing yourself of the issues, weighing them up and voting on them.

I wouldn't accept "I didn't understand the bill, so I voted No" from an elected representative. I don't see why I should accept it from a voter.

Well you wouldn't sign a contract you didn't understand, would you? Only a fool would.

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Well you wouldn't sign a contract you didn't understand, would you? Only a fool would.

You'd seek professional advice, not say No and No means No.

SkepticOne

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

And my point was that if no movements or parties exist showing the views of these ordinary people then those views will go unheard and you cannot blame the government, or any research for that, if they do not represent their views those views will be ignored. That is their responsibility. It is not up to some psychic to read their minds.

But the "no" voters don't have a problem with the "no" result. It is the Lisbon supporters that need, and I believe failed, to find out the reasons for that result.

nesf

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Well you wouldn't sign a contract you didn't understand, would you? Only a fool would.

Again with the inane analogies. It's not required that you understand a contract only that someone you trust understands it.

FT, I'm getting tired of this and honestly if you keep coming up with these blatantly pointless analogies and conclusions then I will ban you from this forum. I don't care what point of view a person has on the treaty but I will not tolerate people continuously putting forward obviously false analogies and conclusions.

Either develop some decent arguments against Lisbon, and there are some you can just cut and paste from other posters on here if you can't think of any, or quit posting here.

K-9

SkepticOne wrote: »

But the "no" voters don't have a problem with the "no" result. It is the Lisbon supporters that need, and I believe failed, to find out the reasons for that result.

They did find out. Abortion, taxation, the Commissioner, Neutrality and "not understanding" comprised over 50% of the No Vote.

Most of the rest would be the usual No voters on every Treaty and I'm sorry, the Govt. cannot assuage their concerns. They just cannot.

Future Taoiseach is a great example. Voted Yes to Nice but wishes he didn't.

yawnstretch

I voted yes last time but am very seriously considering voting no this time around because being asked twice pisses me off.

K-9

yawnstretch wrote: »

I voted yes last time but am very seriously considering voting no this time around because being asked twice pisses me off.

Some people voted No wanting a second referendum.

BlitzKrieg

SkepticOne wrote: »

But the "no" voters don't have a problem with the "no" result.

*no* voters do have a problem with the current *no* result if you look at it in a productive manner and consider that everything that has occured from it since has been because of that *no* result. It is firstly impossible to simply have it as *no* and leave it at that in any political or international decision, it has to be a *no* because... THis is where the people not being represented would be loosing out. They dont have the voice to fill in the because part. Hence why there is a 2nd referendum, the because was filled out with the issues K-9 highlighted and the government has attempted to act on those issues, if there were other issues, one's that couldnt be so easily solved, or ones that called for a very drastic change to the Irish/EU relationship, you might have seen a very different outcome. But they were relatively simple issues to solve, hence there is such an ease to move to a 2nd referendum, angering a number of *no* voters.

Simply no is never an answer. Especially in an international issue.

It is the Lisbon supporters that need, and I believe failed, to find out the reasons for that result

We have failed to find out the reason or have large portion of voters failed to make themselves heard? Sounds like failure on all sides to me and the one's loosing out are still the no voters.

SkepticOne

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

We have failed to find out the reason or have large portion of voters failed to make themselves heard? Sounds like failure on all sides to me and the one's loosing out are still the no voters.

Yes, I think possibly the country as a whole has failed.

K-9

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

We have failed to find out the reason or have large portion of voters failed to make themselves heard? Sounds like failure on all sides to me and the one's loosing out are still the no voters.

Which isn't surprising when No means No is such a popular slogan!

FutureTaoiseach

Blitzkrieg wrote:

*no* voters do have a problem with the current *no* result if you look at it in a productive manner and consider that everything that has occured from it since has been because of that *no* result. It is firstly impossible to simply have it as *no* and leave it at that in any political or international decision, it has to be a *no* because... THis is where the people not being represented would be loosing out. They dont have the voice to fill in the because part. Hence why there is a 2nd referendum, the because was filled out with the issues K-9 highlighted and the government has attempted to act on those issues, if there were other issues, one's that couldnt be so easily solved, or ones that called for a very drastic change to the Irish/EU relationship, you might have seen a very different outcome. But they were relatively simple issues to solve, hence there is such an ease to move to a 2nd referendum, angering a number of *no* voters.

It will be for the Irish people to judge whether these issues have been "so easily solved" in a context where the Treaty has not changed one iota. The wording of the assurances will no doubt come up for debate, and its adequacy in defending Irish neutrality, taxation etc. will be scrutinised. The Irish people are not ones to take the word of the political-elites as gospel anymore, after 11 years of unrelenting scandal from the Tribunals. The thesis that the issues of concern have been "so easily solved" is not an objective fact. It is an opinion.

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

... The wording of the assurances will no doubt come up for debate, and its adequacy in defending Irish neutrality, taxation etc. will be scrutinised...

Are you implying that our positions on neutrality, taxation, etc. are not adequately safeguarded?

FutureTaoiseach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Are you implying that our positions on neutrality, taxation, etc. are not adequately safeguarded?

Well I'm not entirely satisfied with the taxation assurance because it fails to address the question of destination-taxes, which would be levied in the country where the transaction takes place, making Irish tax-rates irrelevant because the money would be going to the govts of our export markets rather than our own govt. This plan is known as CCCTB (Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base) and is the brainchild of EU Taxation Commissioner Laslo Kovacs, who has publicly said he would try to use Enhanced Cooperation to get around a national veto on the issue. I want a specific ban on CCCTB inserted into the decision.

BlitzKrieg

The thesis that the issues of concern have been "so easily solved" is not an objective fact. It is an opinion.

I meant legally they are easily solved. That the issues most vocal could all be solved like you said *without changing a single iota of the treaty*

You know if there was a huge surging wave of popular opinion and support for an issue that actually was at something at the core of the treaty, maybe the treaty might have been forced into having a serious amendment.

But no, the issues that were most vocal, were the ones that despite your sabre rattling for the most part not in any form an issue in Lisbon.

Yes, I think possibly the country as a whole has failed.

I would think that maybe popular perception of democracy might be an issue at stake, too much assumption on the rights without the responsibilities or more common too simplified assumption of what our democracy is. THere is an assumption that all democracies are the same and that its some golden system of government when the reality is that country by country we all have vastly different approaches to the notion of democracy and government.

RandomName2

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

*no* voters do have a problem with the current *no* result if you look at it in a productive manner and consider that everything that has occured from it since has been because of that *no* result. It is firstly impossible to simply have it as *no* and leave it at that in any political or international decision, it has to be a *no* because... This is where the people not being represented would be loosing out. They dont have the voice to fill in the because part. Hence why there is a 2nd referendum, the because was filled out with the issues K-9 highlighted and the government has attempted to act on those issues, if there were other issues, one's that couldnt be so easily solved, or ones that called for a very drastic change to the Irish/EU relationship, you might have seen a very different outcome. But they were relatively simple issues to solve, hence there is such an ease to move to a 2nd referendum, angering a number of *no* voters.

Simply no is never an answer. Especially in an international issue.

We have failed to find out the reason or have large portion of voters failed to make themselves heard? Sounds like failure on all sides to me and the one's loosing out are still the no voters.

I see what you're saying.

It is arguable whether or not the administrative changes detailed in the treaty are imperative to the running of the EU. It is also arguable what type of governance is most appropriate for the... countries which are a part of the EU [Europe would be a bit of a misnomer here].

And these arguments are to a large part intractable; not least due to the fact that the public's capacity to exert influence upon the details of this type of international treaty formation is negligible [again with arguments on both sides about whether this is a good or a bad thing].

And this lack of influence, interestingly enough, is a major contributing factor to people not learning about the specifics about the treaty [the other reasons would be due to the fact that it is difficult to read, and the common assumption that voting no wouldn't have much consequence as the government would just run the referendum again].

From the no voter perspective there is not much conseqence in the ratification process, in terms of the moral duty for the Irish to rubber stamp Lisbon, as there is a lack of legitimacy in the division between the EU public and the treaty. For the yes voter there is the pragmatic consideration of the opinion of elected or appointed public representatives who adopt the mantle of their repective states and are charged with their states' decisions. Again this is an argument that cannot really be resolved, although there is no end to the obfustication produced in relation to these two binary positions.

No can mean no in relation to, for instance, the abolition of PR [insert insincere appology for inane analogy], which was a decision that Fianna Fail had to respect. But a 'no' vote was never going to be respected, as you point out, due to the fact that the public is not only dealing with the Irish government, but also those of the other 26 states.

The reasons for the 'no' vote were never going tobe properly investigated as there was no point. In fact it would be seriously detrimental to the 'yes' campaign if some intractible issue was raised, such as opposition to further integration. In fact, the fact that the treaty cannot be changed mid-flow really meant that nothing substantial could be done by the government; so the easiest and safest option is to point out aspects of the 'no' campaigns that they believe can be easily sidestepped, cross their fingers, and hope that the global recession does the rest of the work for them.

I was a would-be 'yes' voter a several months before the first Lisbon vote, but found myself gradually distanced from the 'arguments' of the treaty's political proponents. Although I have little repect for the organisers of the 'no' campaign, I find this is not a substantive argument against being a 'no' voter. Nor do I find the fact that 'no' is not an easy answer to give a good reason to approve Lisbon. I have found little reason since my distancing from the 'yes' side to change my opinion. In fact, nothing substantive has changed to the proposed changes to the constitution of the EU since such changes were mooted several years ago in relation to Nice, and the continued process of further integration.

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Well I'm not entirely satisfied with the taxation assurance because it fails to address the question of destination-taxes, which would be levied in the country where the transaction takes place, making Irish tax-rates irrelevant because the money would be going to the govts of our export markets rather than our own govt. This plan is known as CCCTB (Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base) and is the brainchild of EU Taxation Commissioner Laslo Kovacs, who has publicly said he would try to use Enhanced Cooperation to get around a national veto on the issue. I want a specific ban on CCCTB inserted into the decision.

That would be anti competitive.

Basically, take the argument that a few used to argue Corporation tax was under threat and apply it there.

Difference being, indirect taxes can come under EU influence, Direct taxes cannot.

We have a veto on CCCTB.

FutureTaoiseach

K-9 wrote: »

That would be anti competitive.

Basically, take the argument that a few used to argue Corporation tax was under threat and apply it there.

Difference being, indirect taxes can come under EU influence, Direct taxes cannot.

We have a veto on CCCTB.

Which Commissioner Kovacs has repeatedly said he will seek to use Enhanced Cooperation to get around, if a country tries to veto it. The problem with CCCTB is that the tax would be levied in another member state, on Irish companies. It is a sly method of getting around our low corporate-tax rate. Rather than abolish the rate, they simply change the country to whom the tax is paid. Very clever. I saw him being repeatedly questioned on this by Sean Whelan after Lisbon I and he refused to answer questions on the issue, saying it was "hypothetical". Commission President Barroso was equally evasive at the National Forum on Europe.

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Which Commissioner Kovacs has repeatedly said he will seek to use Enhanced Cooperation to get around, if a country tries to veto it. The problem with CCCTB is that the tax would be levied in another member state, on Irish companies. It is a sly method of getting around our low corporate-tax rate. Rather than abolish the rate, they simply change the country to whom the tax is paid. Very clever. I saw him being repeatedly questioned on this by Sean Whelan after Lisbon I and he refused to answer questions on the issue, saying it was "hypothetical". Commission President Barroso was equally evasive at the National Forum on Europe.

OK, to have Enhanced Cooperation you need?

nesf

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Well I'm not entirely satisfied with the taxation assurance because it fails to address the question of destination-taxes, which would be levied in the country where the transaction takes place, making Irish tax-rates irrelevant because the money would be going to the govts of our export markets rather than our own govt. This plan is known as CCCTB (Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base) and is the brainchild of EU Taxation Commissioner Laslo Kovacs, who has publicly said he would try to use Enhanced Cooperation to get around a national veto on the issue. I want a specific ban on CCCTB inserted into the decision.

You do understand what a Common Tax Base is don't you? What it doesn't do is change the actual rate at which Corporation tax is charged in any country. All it would do would be to fix exactly counts as income and what counts as expenses for a company.

FutureTaoiseach

K-9 wrote: »

OK, to have Enhanced Cooperation you need?

9 member states to agree to it, and permission from the EU Commission.

nesf wrote:

You do understand what a Common Tax Base is don't you? What it doesn't do is change the actual rate at which Corporation tax is charged in any country. All it would do would be to fix exactly counts as income and what counts as expenses for a company.

I know that. It's still a threat which could erode the Irish corporate-tax base. We want companies based here to pay their corporate-taxes here, not to a foreign government. We export 90% of what we produce, so CCCTB based on sales-destination, as proposed by Commissioner Kovacs, could be devastating for the Irish Exchequer. I have been following this particular story for years and I know what agenda he is pushing.

lionela

oscarBravo wrote: »

Spare a thought for all the poor people bullied into voting "no" last time.

Does NO not count any more.??
Does a No vote result mean ..that you have to boil your cabbage twice . I am happy with the result of the last poll and I will vote No again no matter how much Jam they put on it .

Life will not end when the Lisbon Treaty is rejected again.

tlev

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

9 member states to agree to it, and permission from the EU Commission.I know that. It's still a threat which could erode the Irish corporate-tax base. We want companies based here to pay their corporate-taxes here, not to a foreign government. We export 90% of what we produce, so CCCTB based on sales-destination, as proposed by Commissioner Kovacs, could be devastating for the Irish Exchequer. I have been following this particular story for years and I know what agenda he is pushing.

Yes well sucks for the Irish that they don't have anything else to offer apart from a low tax rate. You'd swear that rather than clinging to this and ONLY this as our main source of competitiveness we'd be actually doing something else to make ourselves attractive to foreign investment/corporations. I don't think it will be 12.5% forever.

tlev

lionela wrote: »

Life will not end when the Lisbon Treaty is rejected again.

Except for maybe Brian Cowan's political career....:rolleyes:

View

RandomName2 wrote: »

And these arguments are to a large part intractable; not least due to the fact that the public's capacity to exert influence upon the details of this type of international treaty formation is negligible

This would be a good argument provided that electing governments and the politicians that make them up has a negligible influence on political decisions. So, for instance, if you believe that there are negligible differences between the strategies that a pro-EU integration party and a staunch anti-EU Eurosceptic would have in negotiating an EU treaty then it is credible. If so, then no doubt you believe there are negligible differences between the economic strategies that a Communist government and a Free Market government would pursue....

RandomName2 wrote: »

The reasons for the 'no' vote were never going tobe properly investigated as there was no point.

A wild claim to be sure. It is not the Government's job to guess what the No campaigners really want. In the aftermath of the defeat of Lisbon I, the onus on the No campaigners was to articulate a clear alternative route forward, that they would have liked to have seen pursued by the Government at EU negotiations. They didn't have any alternative to offer in all bar one case, hence - by default - it was left to the Government to negotiate what they believed was what the electorate wanted. This they have duly done.

RandomName2 wrote: »

In fact it would be seriously detrimental to the 'yes' campaign if some intractible issue was raised, such as opposition to further integration.

No, this would be really easy for the Government to deal with. If the No campaigners had campaigned on a platform of opposition to further integration and won, and had the post-referenda research backed this up as the main No vote reason, then the Government could have easily resolved this issue.

They would just have started our withdrawal process from the EU - there wouldn't be much point in being a member of an organisation committed to integration, if we were all opposed to the concept of EU integration, would there?

P. Breathnach

View wrote: »

... It is not the Government's job to guess what the No campaigners really want.

Nor is it necessarily right that the no campaigners should get to map out the path to take. My memory might be faulty, but I think that many of the campaigners took a "job done" view of things; it seemed that what they wanted was to throw a spanner into the works. Gerry Adams virtually offered to take a leading role in forcing the representatives of 27 states into a major renegotiation of the treaty -- which, given how long it takes to negotiate on anything in the Sinn Fein style, would have held the process back for years.

Given how heterogenous the no campaign was, it was more appropriate for the government to try to ascertain what the no voters wanted.

Martin 2

lionela wrote: »

Does NO not count any more.??

Lionela, Of course it does, the treaty wasn’t ratified after the first No and I think a second No will kill it off altogether. But since last time, and as a result of the first No, we will now have a permanent commissioner and we have guarantees and assurances that the treaty will not introduce abortion, conscription or control of our taxes; what’s more we’ve had an extra year to understand the merits or demerits of the treaty, so the first No wasn’t ignored, it achieved something and now I really think it’s a time to change.
We are also in a period of economic crisis and a Yes vote is likely to help the economy and a No more likely to damage it, if like me you’ve lived through the 80’s you know things can get a lot worse.

lionela wrote: »

Life will not end when the Lisbon Treaty is rejected again.

Technically yes, but will it be better or worse, that is the question.

Ps. I haven’t talked about opposition to further integration or other issues of contention because there is a parallel discussion on this topic on this thread.

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

9 member states to agree to it, and permission from the EU Commission.

And?

FutureTaoiseach wrote:

I know that. It's still a threat which could erode the Irish corporate-tax base. We want companies based here to pay their corporate-taxes here, not to a foreign government. We export 90% of what we produce, so CCCTB based on sales-destination, as proposed by Commissioner Kovacs, could be devastating for the Irish Exchequer. I have been following this particular story for years and I know what agenda he is pushing.

It isn't Corporation tax then, it's VAT.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

9 member states to agree to it, and permission from the EU Commission.I know that. It's still a threat which could erode the Irish corporate-tax base. We want companies based here to pay their corporate-taxes here, not to a foreign government. We export 90% of what we produce, so CCCTB based on sales-destination, as proposed by Commissioner Kovacs, could be devastating for the Irish Exchequer. I have been following this particular story for years and I know what agenda he is pushing.

But not, apparently, that it is entirely unrelated to the Lisbon Treaty. Let's remind you, since you appear to need reminding, what the member states have legally stated about the Treaty:

Lisbon Guarantees wrote:

Nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon makes any change of any kind, for any Member State, to the extent or operation of the competence of the European Union in relation to taxation.

I'm not sure why that's so hard to grasp (it's very plain English, and it's a legally binding statement about the contents of Lisbon), but I am sure you're going to argue about it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

But not, apparently, that it is entirely unrelated to the Lisbon Treaty. Let's remind you, since you appear to need reminding, what the member states have legally stated about the Treaty:



I'm not sure why that's so hard to grasp (it's very plain English, and it's a legally binding statement about the contents of Lisbon), but I am sure you're going to argue about it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sure Commissioner Kovacs is arguing about it for years too, with little success.