Is anyone else actually turning against their side in the treaty because...

hatrickpatrick

...Of the people associated with it?

For example, I initially supported the treaty, but what changed my mind was various aspects of the yes campaign - the unbelievable arrogance, the distaste for democracy as I see it (the will of the people vs. the will of the government), and the fact that so many yes voters argue that the nation state isn't something to be guarded against erosion of sovereignty.

On the other hand, some on the no side are driving me away too. I generally support a lot of left wing movements (especially the anti war movements), but the fact that the fundamentalist social conservatives oppose the treaty is really beginning to make me (a social libertarian) uneasy about voting against it.

Is anyone else experiencing anything similar? The arguments for one side of the treaty actually end up working against that side in your mind? EG, what the yes voters say about why you should vote yes drives you to the no side and so on?

NOTE: This isn't a topic for bickering, arguing, or controversy - I'm just curious to know if I'm the only one who finds that this is generally happening with all of the pro or anti campaigns, they defeat their own arguments...

Scofflaw

Not really. The official Yes campaigns irritate me vastly with their apparent inability to sell the Treaty, but I'm certainly capable of separating that irritation from my view of the Treaty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I've seen three posters from Ireland for Europe, they all irritate me:

"It's Simple. We Need Europe" - so you're saying that if we vote No we'll be kicked out of the EU?

"It's Simple, I want a strong voice in Europe" - so if we vote No we'll be part of a two tier Europe?

"It's Simple, I'm safer in Europe" - Whaaaa?! So the EU will declare war on us if we vote No?

Three conflicting scaremongering stories, of which the last one is complete rubbish. But I agree that the No side are doing the same, I don't for one second believe that the minimum wage will drop to €1.84 per hour if we ratify Lisbon.

MrMatisse

I feel the same as the OP.

I initially thought yes but now im thinking no.

I feel that the yes sides campaign is basically, vote yes because you have too and there not really delving into the various issues.

Can Ireland really be called independent after this if we are obliged to support EU foreign policy?

Things like that are just not being addressed by the Yes side.

hatrickpatrick

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Can Ireland really be called independent after this if we are obliged to support EU foreign policy?

That's one of my main reason for opposing. The Yes side argues that "It's better because the EU will have a much bigger voice than any single nation could" - but they don't seem to answer the question, "what can we do if the EU insists on us supporting a side we actually oppose in a foreign dispute?"

Again, I asked these questions originally as a doubting Yes voter, but the responses of either contempt for Ireland's right to foreign policy or for the idea that the EU could ever push a policy we don't approve of. Both could happen and both are very real concerns - but the yes voters sweep them under the carpet. Why? It's an important issue.

Scofflaw

Really-Stressed wrote: »

I feel the same as the OP.

I initially thought yes but now im thinking no.

I feel that the yes sides campaign is basically, vote yes because you have too and there not really delving into the various issues.

Can Ireland really be called independent after this if we are obliged to support EU foreign policy?

We're not. Foreign policy is a purely intergovernmental area, and there can only be an "EU foreign policy" if Ireland has already agreed to it.

If you're voting No on that basis you are voting No under a misapprehension. Foreign policy is decided at the European Council level, not by the 'community method'. Treaty references available on request.

cordially,
Scofflaw

MrMatisse

'The Member States shall support the Union’s external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union’s action in this area.’

(Par. 27) Further all EU States’ embassies must publicly support the majority policy. ‘The diplomatic missions of Member States … in third countries and international organisations shall cooperate and shall contribute to formulating and implementing the common approach’

jill_valentine

I had been leaning towards a No vote, but yes, to be honest, the company that would put me in concerns me deeply.

oscarBravo

Really-Stressed wrote: »

'The Member States shall support the Union’s external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union’s action in this area.’

(Par. 27) Further all EU States’ embassies must publicly support the majority policy. ‘The diplomatic missions of Member States … in third countries and international organisations shall cooperate and shall contribute to formulating and implementing the common approach’

One thread was enough to post that in. I've deleted the cross-posts.

Scofflaw

Really-Stressed wrote: »

'The Member States shall support the Union’s external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union’s action in this area.’

(Par. 27) Further all EU States’ embassies must publicly support the majority policy. ‘The diplomatic missions of Member States … in third countries and international organisations shall cooperate and shall contribute to formulating and implementing the common approach’

That's right - once we've agreed to it, we have to support it. Does that surprise you in some way?

What you've quoted contains no reference to how the EU's foreign policy is decided.

cordially,
Scofflaw

MrMatisse

However its decided we will have very little influence over it.

So basically Germany/France will say jump and we will say how high?

Definitly a no from me now.

MrMatisse

jill_valentine wrote: »

I had been leaning towards a No vote, but yes, to be honest, the company that would put me in concerns me deeply.

A yes would put you in with our dear leader Brian Cowen:D

Scofflaw

Really-Stressed wrote: »

However its decided we will have very little influence over it.

So basically Germany/France will say jump and we will say how high?

Definitly a no from me now.

No, we have a veto, because foreign policy is decided at the European Council, which does unanimity voting:

Article 22 TEU wrote:

1. On the basis of the principles and objectives set out in Article 21, the European Council shall identify the strategic interests and objectives of the Union. Decisions of the European Council on the strategic interests and objectives of the Union shall relate to the common foreign and security policy and to other areas of the external action of the Union. Such decisions may concern the relations of the Union with a specific country or region or may be thematic in approach. They shall define their duration, and the means to be made available by the Union and the Member States. The European Council shall act unanimously on a recommendation from the Council, adopted by the latter under the arrangements laid down for each area. Decisions of the European Council shall be implemented in accordance with the procedures provided for in the Treaties.

2. The High Representative of the Union for foreign Affairs and Security Policy, for the area of common foreign and security policy, and the Commission, for other areas of external action, may submit joint proposals to the Council.

cordially,
Scofflaw

MrMatisse

Im very unsure, i dont like voting yes on anything with a paragraph like that in it.

Where is all this heading. Thats my main concern.

Is an Irish leader going to have the ba**S to veto an eu foreign policy?

Doubt it.

Will they not just find a way to go ahead with whatever foreign policy they want anyway ? Like the murmours around what will happen if we vote no, which we will then be associated with?

nesf

Karsini wrote: »

"It's Simple. We Need Europe" - so you're saying that if we vote No we'll be kicked out of the EU?

No it's just arguing that we need Europe. You could extend this to "We need the EU far more than the EU needs us" but that'd be overreaching I think.

Karsini wrote: »

"It's Simple, I want a strong voice in Europe" - so if we vote No we'll be part of a two tier Europe?

No, there are two elements to this, one is that post Lisbon our elected representatives in Europe would have more say and second that voting No would reduce our influence in Europe for some time.

Karsini wrote: »

"It's Simple, I'm safer in Europe" - Whaaaa?! So the EU will declare war on us if we vote No?

Ok, I really don't understand how you came up with this last interpretation! Basically it's saying that in the EU we are protected from outside aggression. In reality while this is true, it's not very likely that this would be a problem for us given our geo-political position in the world.


You're conjuring up consequences that aren't really there. All three posters carry the same core message "EU Good! So vote Yes!", which isn't hugely convincing to someone like me but it isn't at any point saying that any of the consequences you list are likely.

jill_valentine

Really-Stressed wrote: »

A yes would put you in with our dear leader Brian Cowen:D

In a split second, I'll choose him over the christian fundamentalist whackjobs I'm currently sharing the picnic with...

Scofflaw

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Can that change after the treaty is introduced?

Only by introducing another treaty. I can't see it happening, though - the European Council is very much the intergovernmental part of the EU.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sceptre

Little scamp that I am, I reckon that if you're thinking of turning away from whatever side you're on merely because there's some lying scumbag or arrogant fecker on the same side as you, then you haven't been deciding your vote on the merits of the question itself at all. Best do that.

Scofflaw

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Im very unsure, i dont like voting yes on anything with a paragraph like that in it.

Where is all this heading. Thats my main concern.

Is an Irish leader going to have the ba**S to veto an eu foreign policy?

Doubt it.

Will they not just find a way to go ahead with whatever foreign policy they want anyway ? Like the murmours around what will happen if we vote no.

No, there's no way to go ahead without Irish agreement. And Ireland has no hesitation using vetoes places like the WTO, where we're up against even more and bigger countries.

The European Council isn't a school playground, any more than the UN or the WTO. The Irish Taoiseach goes representing the government of a sovereign country - and no country within the EU can commit either war or economic war on another. Whether Angela Merkel looks stroppy or not (and who can tell?), no German army will be following the Irish Taoiseach home to 'have a word with him', and there won't be any German customs officers turning away Irish imports at the border. That's why we're in the EU in the first place.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...Of the people associated with it?

For example, I initially supported the treaty, but what changed my mind was various aspects of the yes campaign - the unbelievable arrogance, the distaste for democracy as I see it (the will of the people vs. the will of the government), and the fact that so many yes voters argue that the nation state isn't something to be guarded against erosion of sovereignty.

On the other hand, some on the no side are driving me away too. I generally support a lot of left wing movements (especially the anti war movements), but the fact that the fundamentalist social conservatives oppose the treaty is really beginning to make me (a social libertarian) uneasy about voting against it.

Is anyone else experiencing anything similar? The arguments for one side of the treaty actually end up working against that side in your mind? EG, what the yes voters say about why you should vote yes drives you to the no side and so on?

NOTE: This isn't a topic for bickering, arguing, or controversy - I'm just curious to know if I'm the only one who finds that this is generally happening with all of the pro or anti campaigns, they defeat their own arguments...

What in particular was annoying you about the Yes campaign last October and January and March?

Why are you pretending to have recently swung from the Yes to the No camp as a result or percieved arrogance?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

No. No it doesn't.

It means that we do not wish to be part of what the Lisbon treaty attempts to turn the EU into.

The EU is supposed to be an economic union. It must not be given any more power to over ride national democratic parliaments on internal issues. I do not want Ireland to become a state in a federal United States of Europe, where our voice has to compete with everyone else in this continent. Leave Irish policy to the Irish people.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

All this fuss about Libertas funding - regardless of where you stand on the issue, can we all agree that if Libertas had campaigned in favour of the treaty no one would give a damn about their funding? They're only attacking Libertas because their side lost...

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How about we do the two distinct EU systems then, the economic and the political one? I support economic europe, I just don't want the EU to have more authority than our own democratically elected government has over internal affairs here.

hatrickpatrick

nesf wrote: »

No it's just arguing that we need Europe. You could extend this to "We need the EU far more than the EU needs us" but that'd be overreaching I think.

But if we all agree that we will remain in Europe whether we vote yes or not, isn't our need of them irrelevant? The question here is, do we (Ireland) need the changes which Lisbon introduces or not. This is one yes side tactic which really annoys me because it's so self destructive. Are you implying that we'll be kicked out of Europe for a no vote? Yes or no?

And if that is indeed the case, would you agree with the idea that the EU is indeed an undemocratic organization?

No, there are two elements to this, one is that post Lisbon our elected representatives in Europe would have more say and second that voting No would reduce our influence in Europe for some time.

Surely QMV and the removal of vetoes completely destroys our influence in a huge number of areas? What influence do we gain by voting yes which we didn't have already?

Ok, I really don't understand how you came up with this last interpretation! Basically it's saying that in the EU we are protected from outside aggression. In reality while this is true, it's not very likely that this would be a problem for us given our geo-political position in the world.

Precisely, so how is it relevant to the Irish yes vote? Another scare mongering tactic by the yes side which drives me away from it.

You're conjuring up consequences that aren't really there.

And the yes side aren't?

All three posters carry the same core message "EU Good! So vote Yes!", which isn't hugely convincing to someone like me but it isn't at any point saying that any of the consequences you list are likely.

This is my core disagreement. "EU good" is irrelevant. We're voting on the Lisbon Treaty, NOT on the EU itself.

It's a bit like if you're on a very well constructed ship with an extremely able crew, but you want to go to America and the ship wants to go to Australia.

Would you argue this by saying "This is a good ship?" No. Because the merits of the ship aren't relevant to the argument over its direction - unless you're implying that you'll be hurled overboard if you block the change of direction. And the yes side have been arguing that this is not the case, right?

Once again you've illustrated that the yes side are not arguing on the merits of the Lisbon treaty itself. That being my core disagreement with them. Arguing about anything else is arguing about something other than the question we are being asked.

Daftendirekt

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...Of the people associated with it?

For example, I initially supported the treaty, but what changed my mind was various aspects of the yes campaign - the unbelievable arrogance, the distaste for democracy as I see it (the will of the people vs. the will of the government), and the fact that so many yes voters argue that the nation state isn't something to be guarded against erosion of sovereignty.

On the other hand, some on the no side are driving me away too. I generally support a lot of left wing movements (especially the anti war movements), but the fact that the fundamentalist social conservatives oppose the treaty is really beginning to make me (a social libertarian) uneasy about voting against it.

Is anyone else experiencing anything similar? The arguments for one side of the treaty actually end up working against that side in your mind? EG, what the yes voters say about why you should vote yes drives you to the no side and so on?

NOTE: This isn't a topic for bickering, arguing, or controversy - I'm just curious to know if I'm the only one who finds that this is generally happening with all of the pro or anti campaigns, they defeat their own arguments...

Nope.

I don't care who wants to argue what points; I'm happy I've informed myself about the treaty's content, and that's what I'm going to base my vote on.

That said, I wasn't impressed with the level of debate from either camp last year, and it looks like it's going to be much the same this time round.

meglome

Karsini wrote: »

I've seen three posters from Ireland for Europe, they all irritate me:

"It's Simple. We Need Europe" - so you're saying that if we vote No we'll be kicked out of the EU?

"It's Simple, I want a strong voice in Europe" - so if we vote No we'll be part of a two tier Europe?

"It's Simple, I'm safer in Europe" - Whaaaa?! So the EU will declare war on us if we vote No?

Three conflicting scaremongering stories, of which the last one is complete rubbish. But I agree that the No side are doing the same, I don't for one second believe that the minimum wage will drop to €1.84 per hour if we ratify Lisbon.

You know these posters are poor and really do little to address what the Lisbon treaty is about, however they are not blatant lies. But I can fully understand you being irritated by them. What I don't understand is why you wouldn't be outraged by the lying pieces of crap that most of the No side have up. Why is that?

fenris

What concerns me is the utter contempt for democracy shown by playing referendum roulette and rerunning the same referendum until cowan gets the result he wants (not a one off as the same stunt was pulled with Nice).

While I think a yes vote is probably the right way to go in a european context, I feel that a yes vote will be paraded as a vindication of the current government and the sub geniuses in the civil service that have gotten us into the current mess. This to me is potentially more damaging to Ireland than a no vote and a lot more likely to result in me losing my job due to the random economic spasms of the government lasting longer.

So at the moment I see my options as voting no to maintain the integrity of the first vote, even though I did not like the result it was a legitimate referendum, or not voting which really goes against the grain.

I feel pushed into a corner and don't like it one bit, the whole Lisbon rerun feels like a stroke that will be the basis of tribunals of the future.

nesf

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is my core disagreement. "EU good" is irrelevant. We're voting on the Lisbon Treaty, NOT on the EU itself.

It's not irrelevant, it's extremely relevant! If the EU hadn't been good to us we'd have a huge bunch of other reasons to vote No! Plus because of the EU's respect of Irish guarantees in the past (c.f. the protocol on abortion) we can infer that they're probably not going to screw us over on our guarantees this time, or at least we can dismiss any claims that they will as scaremongering. And so on across the board.

nesf

fenris wrote: »

What concerns me is the utter contempt for democracy shown by playing referendum roulette and rerunning the same referendum until cowan gets the result he wants (not a one off as the same stunt was pulled with Nice).

Ok, a) the Treaty goes back to the European Council in December if it's not passed, there is a time limit on these things, Cowen can't just keep running referenda, b) the integrity of the first vote is very much in place, the Government went off and got guarantees on the issues that appeared to be of most concern to those who voted No (i.e. neutrality, the Commissioner issue etc).

fenris wrote: »

While I think a yes vote is probably the right way to go in a european context, I feel that a yes vote will be paraded as a vindication of the current government and the sub geniuses in the civil service that have gotten us into the current mess. This to me is potentially more damaging to Ireland than a no vote and a lot more likely to result in me losing my job due to the random economic spasms of the government lasting longer.

So at the moment I see my options as voting no to maintain the integrity of the first vote, even though I did not like the result it was a legitimate referendum, or not voting which really goes against the grain.

I feel pushed into a corner and don't like it one bit, the whole Lisbon rerun feels like a stroke that will be the basis of tribunals of the future.

This is the worst reason for voting no. I mean the absolute worst. Vote Yes if the Treaty is good for Europe and Ireland, Vote No if you disagree, please don't choose which way to vote based on the present Irish Government! It's not their baby, the main Opposition parties support the Treaty too and honestly a Yes vote to Lisbon isn't going to keep FF in Government longer (atm the biggest threat to FF are the Greens leaving and the Lisbon Treaty isn't a major issue for that party).

meglome

meglome wrote: »

What I don't understand is why you wouldn't be outraged by the lying pieces of crap that most of the No side have up. Why is that?

I thought I had covered that by mentioning Cóir spouting out claims that our minimum wage will be cut, no? This time round I have seen many more Yes posters than No ones however.

Max Power1

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...Of the people associated with it?

For example, I initially supported the treaty, but what changed my mind was various aspects of the yes campaign - the unbelievable arrogance, the distaste for democracy as I see it (the will of the people vs. the will of the government), and the fact that so many yes voters argue that the nation state isn't something to be guarded against erosion of sovereignty.

On the other hand, some on the no side are driving me away too. I generally support a lot of left wing movements (especially the anti war movements), but the fact that the fundamentalist social conservatives oppose the treaty is really beginning to make me (a social libertarian) uneasy about voting against it.

Is anyone else experiencing anything similar? The arguments for one side of the treaty actually end up working against that side in your mind? EG, what the yes voters say about why you should vote yes drives you to the no side and so on?

NOTE: This isn't a topic for bickering, arguing, or controversy - I'm just curious to know if I'm the only one who finds that this is generally happening with all of the pro or anti campaigns, they defeat their own arguments...

Both sides have total and utter rubbish on their billboards. Tbh anyone that bases their vote on a billboard slogan shouldnt be allowed to vote.

lionela

We have already voted on this issue..and the result was No.

Be happy with this because nothing is going to happen.

The ecomony, the jobs, the health services have nothing to do with voting for Lisbon. It's the greedy bugggers that got us into the present situation.
There is nothing in any publication thrown at us or posted on lamposts that refers to the treaty properly. It's a con job again....nothing has changed ..they have only put a little jam on it to make it look sweeter.


Vote No again.... and Ireland will have more respect in the EU.

Show the other Nations in the EU that we at least have bottle and will not be conned.

Scofflaw

lionela wrote: »

We have already voted on this issue..and the result was No.

Be happy with this because nothing is going to happen.

The ecomony, the jobs, the health services have nothing to do with voting for Lisbon. It's the greedy bugggers that got us into the present situation.
There is nothing in any publication thrown at us or posted on lamposts that refers to the treaty properly. It's a con job again....nothing has changed ..they have only put a little jam on it to make it look sweeter.


Vote No again.... and Ireland will have more respect in the EU.

Show the other Nations in the EU that we at least have bottle and will not be conned.

Except by COIR, Libertas et al. That'll win us loads of respect.

amused,
Scofflaw

meglome

fenris wrote: »

What concerns me is the utter contempt for democracy shown by playing referendum roulette and rerunning the same referendum until cowan gets the result he wants (not a one off as the same stunt was pulled with Nice).

While I think a yes vote is probably the right way to go in a european context, I feel that a yes vote will be paraded as a vindication of the current government and the sub geniuses in the civil service that have gotten us into the current mess. This to me is potentially more damaging to Ireland than a no vote and a lot more likely to result in me losing my job due to the random economic spasms of the government lasting longer.

So at the moment I see my options as voting no to maintain the integrity of the first vote, even though I did not like the result it was a legitimate referendum, or not voting which really goes against the grain.

I feel pushed into a corner and don't like it one bit, the whole Lisbon rerun feels like a stroke that will be the basis of tribunals of the future.

I was wondering how tired I get could get with the same lines being wheeled out, it seems very tired.

But once more with feeling then... Our constitution allows us to have referenda, that same constitution allows there to be more than one. It may not suit you but it's perfectly democratic and is perfectly legal. I'm sorry but either you respect our constitution or you don't. If you want to change it then I suggest you campaign for that.

Nothing could save the reputation of this government of ours, nothing. A Yes to Lisbon helps Ireland and Fianna Fail can still go **** themselves. I've no idea how you think potentially hurting this country in order to save your job makes any sense.