UCD Students and The Lisbon Treaty

Mr.Nice Guy

errlloyd wrote: »

I am happy to let people I vote into power make decisions for me. So are the French and the British.

Actually the British aren't happy as many are still upset considering Labour came to power on a manifesto that promised a vote on the EU Constitution (which they got around by saying the Lisbon Treaty was different, even though those who are pro-Treaty say it's different by around 4-5% at most). Many French people were unhappy at the move and personally I am PROUD that my country requires a referendum before making drastic changes to our state's way of life.

errlloyd wrote:

I'd rather Cowen made the decision then an uneducated rabble who genuinely believe if we put this through minimum wage will be 1:80.

This typifies the arrogance of many on the Yes side. That's like me suggesting all Yes voters are thickos who think we will be ejected from the EU if we vote No again. I know this is not the case. Why don't you try looking at the other point of view without bringing up extremists, Sinn Fein and god knows who else? Give your compatriots a bit of credit perhaps and don't brand the majority last time "uneducated"?

errlloyd wrote:

Why don't you trust the proffessionals? Why don't you trust the people who's job it is to make sure these are good for us? Why the hell do you trust Sinn Fein over everyone else?

You're asking me why I don't trust the politicians of this country? All I can say to that is LOL. Check where you are.

Sinn Fein have ZERO to do with my decision. I couldn't care less what they decide to do. I do know that Joe Higgins however is anti-Lisbon and I regard him as one of the few honourable and noble politicians that we have left in this country. Even if Higgins was for it though I'd still be against it because I've followed the progression of this Treaty from its EU Constitution days and have followed it with much alarm. As a student of politics in the college I've had the opportunity of putting questions to learned people who were in favour of the Treaty.

My No vote was not an "uneducated" move, it was a move I made having weighed up both sides. It had nothing to do with neutrality, abortion or any of that other media bullsh*t. It was to do with being concerned that my country would be marginalised under the new system and I remain convinced this will happen if the Lisbon Treaty is endorsed.

If you want to know who I trust I'll tell you - the people. So why can't we allow EVERY country in the European Union a referendum on the Treaty? If it's so wonderful surely it will pass everywhere, right? And if the EU is truly committed to democracy surely they'd be all for it, right?

You and I both know however the truth is quite different.

Anyways...I told myself I wouldn't get involved in one of these back and forth debates because they keep going round in circles. Clearly we have our own views which aren't likely to be reconciled.

errlloyd

Grando mate. If your going to make a proper decision I won't argue, and it seems you have made an educated decision.

Your support of Joe Higgins indicates to me that you are a man of vastly different political opinions to myself, and therefore explains our disagreement over this issue.

Handsome Bob

If you don't mind me asking MNG what is the exact problem you have with the treaty? I'm planning on voting yes in order to give the EU a more authorative say in fighting human and drug traffiking. I am also voting yes in order to have the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights ratified. I cannot see why anyone would oppose these reasons.

Pride Fighter

errlloyd wrote: »

I'd rather Cowen made the decision then an uneducated rabble who genuinely believe if we put this through minimum wage will be 1:80.

Brian Cowen, the man with no mandate to govern, what is the government approval rating? 11%.

If you think FF are making the right decisions look at the economy now. They did a great job there:rolleyes::rolleyes:

errlloyd

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Brian Cowen, the man with no mandate to govern, what is the government approval rating? 11%.

If you think FF are making the right decisions look at the economy now. They did a great job there:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Which part of Worldwide economic crisis is his fault alone?

Pride Fighter

LZ5by5 wrote: »

If you don't mind me asking MNG what is the exact problem you have with the treaty? I'm planning on voting yes in order to give the EU a more authorative say in fighting human and drug traffiking. I am also voting yes in order to have the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights ratified. I cannot see why anyone would oppose these reasons.

Those are some of the good things in the treaty. If you want to forget about the EU's attack on our democratic process, the attack on workers rights and the increase of militarisation that is your decision. I wont begrudge a yes voter who will admit that there is a lot of rubbish in Lisbon but some good and they are voting because of the few good things in it.

Pride Fighter

errlloyd wrote: »

Which part of Worldwide economic crisis is his fault alone?

Look at Canada, a strongly regulated banking sector. No banking crisis there.

Ireland, laissez faire regulation of the banking sector. Economic catastrophe. If Cowen as Finance minister empowered the financial regulator and ensured banks gave out loans to those who could pay them we would be fine.

Ireland, since 2002 exports were sliding. As the real Celtic tiger was dying a fake Celtic tiger was built post 2002 of a property bubble. If this bubble was not fuelled we would be fine.

The Irish economy tanked due to the policies of FF. Had they been prudent we would be fine.

Kournikova

I'll vote YES, but the economy and Brian Cowan are really irrelevant when discussing Lisbon, you shouldn't just say NO because of FF.

errlloyd

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Look at Canada, a strongly regulated banking sector. No banking crisis there.

Feel free to pick the only exception. Every other nation made that mistake.

Meh, as others said its not really relevant, you seem to love Gilmore, he loves Lisbon. Two plus two.

Time Magazine

errlloyd wrote: »

Which part of Worldwide economic crisis is his fault alone?

None, but external conditions are only a small part of our problem. Our problems are threefold, all interlinked, but all distinct. There's "the recession", which is at least partly international, but also internal because construction tanked. There's "the banking crisis" which is almost entirely internal, because construction tanked. And there's the €20bn hole in our government finances, which was completely under our control.

You can't blame the international recession and keep a straight face.

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Look at Canada, a strongly regulated banking sector. No banking crisis there.

Ireland, laissez faire regulation of the banking sector. Economic catastrophe.

There are plenty of things to learn from this whole affair but you're picking up the wrong one. Firstly, you're overlooking the fact that the primary cause of Ireland's banking problems is the construction sector's decline. Canada didn't have that problem.

Ireland was not laissez-faire in regulation of banking. Not at all. We could have done with stronger legislation, agreed, but we're in the Eurozone ffs. We have very strict regulations on banking. One major problem, from what I can see, is that the regulation was badly done. The regulator was there, but doing his rather-minimal job poorly. He couldn't ref the match. Suggesting that the answer would have been to add linesman duties as well is idealogical nonsense, particularly when you rightly note that the government itself was cheer-leading the construction bubble. Basically, I'm accusing you of being ideologically blind-sighted if you think regulation is the answer. You're really, really turning a blind eye to the shades of grey of hyper regulation -- it's not all rosey.

Pride Fighter

Economist, it seems to rebut errlloyd you are agreeing with me regarding the financial collapse here in Ireland. Then when quoting me you disagree with me. Which one is it. Did FF cause the economic collapse or didnt they?

Time Magazine

FF do indeed have blood on their hands in terms of the economic collapse. "Laissez faire regulation of the banking sector"? Not so much.

There's plenty of blame to go around for this mess. I don't think it should be mis-attributed or claimed as some weird sort of coup by socialists.

dyl10

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Economist, it seems to rebut errlloyd you are agreeing with me regarding the financial collapse here in Ireland. Then when quoting me you disagree with me. Which one is it. Did FF cause the economic collapse or didnt they?

FF didn't cause the financial collapse, but they incidentally removed anything resembling a safety net in the approximate decade prior to it.

errlloyd

I challenge any other political party to have done much better tbh. FG would have been much of a muchness. Labour would mean we would own everything, which would be losing money anyway and SF... Oh Gawd...

Time Magazine

errlloyd wrote: »

I challenge any other political party to have done much better tbh. FG would have been much of a muchness. Labour would mean we would own everything, which would be losing money anyway and SF... Oh Gawd...

FG would have had Richard Bruton (an economist( in Finance and who knows how he would have shaped that department to have been more able to have listened to the repeated warnings from academic economists about construction and how cope with the downturn. Who knows, but probably better than Biffo did tbh.

Labour probably would have taxed construction out of existence. Strangely, that probably would have been a good thing.

SF don't count.

passive

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Those are some of the good things in the treaty. If you want to forget about the EU's attack on our democratic process, the attack on workers rights and the increase of militarisation that is your decision. I wont begrudge a yes voter who will admit that there is a lot of rubbish in Lisbon but some good and they are voting because of the few good things in it.

Sorry, can you quote for me the article relating to the "EU's attack on our democratic process", or is it complete bull****? And when you say "Militarisation," what exactly do you have in mind? Is the EU moving towards becoming a giant war machine and conscripting us, as we have guarantees against, or does it encourage co-operation in peacekeeping and the maintenance of certain standards in defence, while acknowledging and guaranteeing our right to abstain and be "neutral" (as we so selectively choose to yell about).

I'd love to see you hand up an essay about this treaty to one of your tutors and get a D- at best. "Poorly constructed, lacks citation, void of any academic merit"

lizzyvera

I voted Yes, and if I have time to vote I'll vote Yes again, but honestly, to me it just seems like they're changing the administration and voting weights. The overall principals will still be the same.


I'm not happy with either side. The propaganda is patronising and simplistic. Pro EU people are all voting Yes, even though you could be ery pro-EU and also opposed to the changes. Anti-EU people are all voting No, although a yes vote would actually change a lot of the things they claim to have a problem with.


The "legal guarantees" re abortion are legally binding because they were in the thing in the first place. The original treaty couldn't force us to have abortion ANYWAY. Our politicians were just pandering to idiots when they got those guarantees. Or, equally likely, our politicians didn't understand it either. They also can't do anything about our neutrality. (I don't know how you can be neutral when there has been ethnic cleansing of your fellow europeans in your own life time. I think that is disgusting and selfish, and I know if anything happened to us we'd expect help)


I also don't really see a problem with an increase in militarisation either, particularly since it comes with a treaty that makes it more difficult to declare war.


(On FF: We blame FF for the collapse. But people voted for FF. If FF had a policy of restricting banks and taxing housing and cutting back on public services, the public wouldn't have voted for them, because at the time, it wouldn't have been popular.

I know I wouldn't have voted for higher tax and less spending if I had a job. Nobody wanted to hear that this collapse would happen, and any party that tried to tell us would not have got any votes. It would have been dismissed by the public as scaremongering. Also, not all economists predicted it and economists can be wrong.

I voted Green. Ugh. Never again.)

dyl10

errlloyd wrote: »

I challenge any other political party to have done much better tbh. FG would have been much of a muchness. Labour would mean we would own everything, which would be losing money anyway and SF... Oh Gawd...

A competition of who is the least foolish of the fools, doesn't satisfy as a defense.

errlloyd

dyl10 wrote: »

A competition of who is the least foolish of the fools, doesn't satisfy as a defense.

Yes it does... Lol we vote for who is best out of the options given.

Anyway regardless a link to the treaty has already been posted, I read it last time, it hard cause it constantly references other treaties and articles within itself. But you can kinda get the gist.

dyl10

errlloyd wrote: »

Yes it does... Lol we vote for who is best out of the options given.

We were discussing the way with which a government conducted themselves and the policies with which they enacted and controlled.
We weren't discussing you're preferential system for candidate voting :rolleyes:

Mr.Nice Guy

LZ5by5 wrote: »

If you don't mind me asking MNG what is the exact problem you have with the treaty? I'm planning on voting yes in order to give the EU a more authorative say in fighting human and drug traffiking. I am also voting yes in order to have the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights ratified. I cannot see why anyone would oppose these reasons.

1) I've always been opposed to the ideal of a European Superstate and I was very concerned to read what I perceived to be attempts to move towards such an arrangement. For example the treaty's preamble talks about "reinforcing the European identity", "creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe" and says the aim is to "advance European integration". I found this troubling.

My concerns about this were not allayed with the pro-Treaty people I spoke with who simply told me Ireland could leave the EU under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty. I don't believe this is a realistic or viable option for a small country like Ireland and to me it's akin to the UK telling Wales it can leave if it wants. Highly unlikely. I have no desire to see a European identity 'reinforced' as I don't feel I have one. The fact I'm from Europe means about as much to me as the fact that I'm from Earth. It's simply a location, a circumstance of birth, and I hold no emotional link to this continent, unlike the emotive link I have to this island.

2) I felt it was morally repugnant of the EU to disregard the French and Dutch rejections of the EU Constitution and to simply repackage it as the Lisbon Treaty and try to get it ratified through parliaments. I felt this was a dangerous and sinister development which made a mockery of the Treaty's supposedly democratic credentials. I honestly felt, and still feel, Ireland by voting No came to the aid of countries like France, Holland and the UK, who wanted and were denied a chance to use their voice and approve or reject it.

3) I did not like the qualified majority voting system and felt the double majority principle, requiring small and big states form coalitions in order to pass policies, didn't safeguard the sovereignty of nation states like Ireland.

Of course the fact that I now feel the EU in hosting a second referendum in essence pulled down their trousers and unloaded a big one on my vote, and on Irish democracy in general, means I now feel obligated on moral grounds to vote No. As I said before though I reckon it will pass this time and I feel after this I'll be done with voting for good. I feel like my democratic rights were robbed from me by Mr Barroso and co last year and I just want the whole thing over with. I'm sure many Yes voters couldn't give a toss but if the same thing happened to them I wonder how they would feel. The great quote by Voltaire, a European, that:

"I may not agree with what you have to say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"

To me this typifies what democracy SHOULD exemplify but I don't believe it does in this country any more. I feel Ireland has sold out on its principles. That too many people in this country are willing to be sh*t upon as long as the money is right. It makes me wonder why we left the UK at all if money is in fact the most important thing.

This country no longer stands for what it was founded upon and the funny/sad thing is the very people who sold it out will be hailing the state's founders in 7 year's time during the 1916 centenary celebrations.

passive

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

The fact I'm from Europe means about as much to me as the fact that I'm from Earth. It's simply a location, a circumstance of birth, and I hold no emotional link to this continent, unlike the emotive link I have to this island.

Oh right... So you want nothing to do with Europe except the odd bag of money. You don't want to withdraw from the Union, or opt out of the areas in which we have opt outs, or just not get personally involved. No, all that would be too reasonable. As a part of this union than benefits us greatly, that you feel no affinity for whatsoever, you want to stop everything in its tracks, reap the benefits and say "NO,THIS FAR SHALT THOU GO AND NO FURTHER. EUROPEAN PEOPLES SHALL NOT BE INTERLINKED, IN A UNION OF INDIVIDUAL NATIONS, BORN FROM THE ASHES OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR. I'M IRISH AND CARE NOT FOR YOUR "EUROPEAN IDENTITY." YOU MAY NOT HAVE YOUR TREATY, OR EVEN YOUR HOUSEKEEPING, FOR I OBJECT ON VAGUE PRINCIPLE, AND WISH TO STAY JUST AS INVOLVED AS I AM NOW, WHILE DISLIKING THE WHOLE IDEA. Now can I have my bag of money? Thanks..."

2) I felt it was morally repugnant of the EU to disregard the French and Dutch rejections of the EU Constitution and to simply repackage it as the Lisbon Treaty and try to get it ratified through parliaments. I felt this was a dangerous and sinister development which made a mockery of the Treaty's supposedly democratic credentials. I honestly felt, and still feel, Ireland by voting No came to the aid of countries like France, Holland and the UK, who wanted and were denied a chance to use their voice and approve or reject it.

It'd be almost cute if it wasn't so sickening how people like you repeat the same tired old lies and ignore all that they're told to the contrary. If the French and Dutch objected to the constitutional trappings of the last one, the state-like symbols etc, but not the admin side of things and the essence of the updates themselves, why is it a problem for you if the EU took out everything they had a problem with and made a new treaty?

And, before you get into the "oh,but then the big mean EU denied them a referendum" crap, you've almost certainly had it explained to you a dozen times that Sarkozy made clear he was going to ratify the treaty without a referendum,prior to being elected. And Dutch courts ruled that constitutions were unbinding and unconstitutional there (open to correction on the last one, but their referendum about the constitution was entirely symbolic, with no weight or effect on the outcome)

also, a paragraph ago you had no European identity and cared only for your accident of birth on this island. Why would you then make a decision to speak for those imaginary europeans crying out for their voices to be heard? And I won't even get into the UK. If you want their attitude to Europe to be the one held in Ireland, on top of so many other of their problems we've inherited or copied, be my guest.

3) I did not like the qualified majority voting system and felt the double majority principle, requiring small and big states form coalitions in order to pass policies, didn't safeguard the sovereignty of nation states like Ireland.

Safeguard the sovereignty of nation states like.... seriously? This is meaningless drivel of the highest order.. It's my understanding that this system is designed to balance the power between larger and smaller states, and actually works more in our favour than the current setup. So what system would you have? Everyone does what Ireland says? Everyone can veto everything so nothing can get done? Good luck running anything ever...

Of course the fact that I now feel the EU in hosting a second referendum in essence pulled down their trousers and unloaded a big one on my vote, and on Irish democracy in general, means I now feel obligated on moral grounds to vote No.

oh **** the **** off.... They're hosting a second referendum? That is an out and out filthy lie. Did they host a second referendum last time our government ran a second referendum? Was it also the big bad EU forcing a second referendum when we revisited the divorce question? Or was it maybe the perfectly valid actions of our government, who are entitled to run referendums as many times as they wish.

And how does this argument hold up when the people vote YES this time? Should they not have been allowed to do that, since you want your NO to last forever? Will the YES be wrong, because it was held... what, 18 months after the NO? What if there's a higher turnout, a higher percentage. What if (and this is what I sincerely hope) it is the clear and unambiguous wish of the holy and democratic Irish people of our Nation State to say yes to this treaty?

Where does this post and all your other ones on this matter sit then? Will you apologise for trying to hold them back or, more likely, will you whine and say they shouldn't have been allowed forced to reconsider the matter with guarantees against their concerns, more information and the merciful death of Libertas.

As I said before though I reckon it will pass this time and I feel after this I'll be done with voting for good.

At least some good will come from this. But feel free to take it up again when you grow the **** up.

I feel like my democratic rights were robbed from me by Mr Barroso and co last year and I just want the whole thing over with. I'm sure many Yes voters couldn't give a toss but if the same thing happened to them I wonder how they would feel. The great quote by Voltaire, a European, that:

"I may not agree with what you have to say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"

To me this typifies what democracy SHOULD exemplify but I don't believe it does in this country any more. I feel Ireland has sold out on its principles. That too many people in this country are willing to be sh*t upon as long as the money is right. It makes me wonder why we left the UK at all if money is in fact the most important thing.


This country no longer stands for what it was founded upon and the funny/sad thing is the very people who sold it out will be hailing the state's founders in 7 year's time during the 1916 centenary celebrations.

:rolleyes: Wow... Aren't you just full of righteous indignation. I'm not even going to bother with all this... The "heroes of 1916" would be spinning in their graves if they knew people were invoking their sacrifice for every single argument imaginable.

I must've missed the part where they ignored our democratic wishes, and the principles of Voltaire, and went ahead with the treaty last year. I guess that's why we're not having a second vote about it?

Ajfunky

Once again still undecided.

But i want to hear from some pro voters, are there any cons in this treaty? I do not think this could be a perfect treaty, yet i would MUCH rather hear the Yes voters giving me the cons rather than pretending it was perfect.

I think if i could somehow hear an unbiased view of the pros and cons (maybe that not entirely unbiased but realistic maybe) i could decide. I have tried getting throught the treaty but i would much rather it laid out nicely by a boards poster, as opposed to the leaflet supplied by the FF (i.e yes voters!)

So basically "yessers" give me the bad points as well as the good!

Also Starring LeVar Burton

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!

If they wanted us to vote again, they should've waited five years and I'd reassess the situation at that stage. I disagreed with the Treaty the first time around, and I'm not satisfied that the relevant changes have been made, so NO it is.

Jev/N

CaptainNegative wrote: »

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!

Well at least this fits with your username

dyl10

Ajfunky wrote: »

But i want to hear from some pro voters, are there any cons in this treaty? I do not think this could be a perfect treaty,

It's rather unlikely that they would draw up a treaty with obvious flaws and holes. I'm sure in the minds of the people who agreed the treaty, it is near perfect.

The negative consequences, assuming there are some, will be seen afterward.

Time Magazine

CaptainNegative wrote: »

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!

Wow, your sig has convinced me.

ardmacha

It's rather unlikely that they would draw up a treaty with obvious flaws and holes

This is a treaty between 27 countries, so has elements that are not ideal for any one country. The impression is sometimes given that this is a Treaty between the "EU" and Ireland, when it is not. The Good Friday agreement has many unpleasant elements from my perspective, but it is a deal and compromises had to be made. This is the nature of agreements.

But the biggest flaw in this Treaty is that it is not a short Constitution with general principles rather than impenetrable detail.

Breezer

I have a cold and a presentation to prepare, so I haven't gone through this thread with my usual fine tooth comb. But I'll be voting Yes, for exactly the same reasons as I voted Yes the last time (I have a lot of long rants in the original thread if anyone's that interested. Really, I'm a very interesting person :pac: )

Although I'm very very disappointed at the campaigning from both sides... again. The No side has ditched their original load of irrelevant issues and manufactured a fresh load of irrelevant issues. Meanwhile, the Yes camp has gone with the old unreliable "Europe good. Me Tarzan" approach.

I'm not optimistic about it being passed

Stabshauptmann

Ajfunky wrote: »

Once again still undecided.

But i want to hear from some pro voters, are there any cons in this treaty? I do not think this could be a perfect treaty, yet i would MUCH rather hear the Yes voters giving me the cons rather than pretending it was perfect.

I think if i could somehow hear an unbiased view of the pros and cons (maybe that not entirely unbiased but realistic maybe) i could decide. I have tried getting throught the treaty but i would much rather it laid out nicely by a boards poster, as opposed to the leaflet supplied by the FF (i.e yes voters!)

So basically "yessers" give me the bad points as well as the good!

Well, in a broad sense, the treaty is about further integration. And you could view this as either a good or a bad thing.

The treaty will make further changes to how decisions are made in the EU - that is it attempts to finish where Nice left of. At the time of the Nice treaty they couldnt gain consensus on what a lot of the changes would be, so kind of said x and y will change, and the detail will be in the next treaty.

You see, it was felt that so much change was needed, that it was better to change what they could straight away and finish the job later.

"Now" is later.

So the changes are:
1. Changes to who makes decisions
More say to the European Parliament on certain issues
More say to national parliament on everything
The principal that local issues should be legislated for locally
The intro of citizens initiatives - ie gather enough signatures and the EU will look into it

2. Changes to how decisions will be made
The Council of Ministers will hold its sessions in public
The weight of each countries votes change (in a way that is beneficial to Ireland imo)
There are two categories of competencies. Those that require unanimous approval and those that use Qualified Majority Voting. More competencies are being moved to the QMV category.
There was plans to reduce the size of the commission but the Gov after the last referendum seems to have gotten guarantees that the commission will not be reduced in size. We'll see...

3. Further co-operation and integration
There will be a figure head president of the EU who will serve for 2.5 years at a term, capped at 5 yrs. This replaces the system where the head of each country got a 6mo turn every 13 years or so.
There will be one EU position (and figure head) on foreign affairs.
There will be a framework for greater cooperation militarily for those who want to opt in.
There will be a framework for greater police cooperation
Im sure theres more integration there too.
Also the treaty gives legal effect the the charter of fundamental rights, which I think is good.

So Im prob gonna vote yes.
I like the QMV structure improvements
I like further cooperation - with a faster more integrated EU I dont think we'd have offered the bank guarantee which was a risky gamble.
I like the idea of faster EU decisions
I like the idea of giving power to the parliament (to an extent)
I like the citizens initiative and proximity principle.
I like the charter of fundamental rights

I dont like the idea of an EU president or HC for Foreign Affairs.
I dont like giving up *any* vetos - but Ireland has actually negotiated the highest numbers of opt outs I think.

I think the treaty will make the EU stronger and is in Ireland's interest.

What is important to mention is how this is different to the EU constitution.
The treaty is 90% the same, but the differences are important to me.

The constitution had all this **** about the EU being like the US which I didnt like; and the French and UK people hated. Im not ready for a united states of Europe.


SO there is my inarticulate, simplistic, and personal take on the treaty, and what I think are the pros and cons.
What I would say is vote, however you feel. But "if you dont know vote no" is not acceptable, you've had 2nd chance to find out and form an opinion