Who to believe?

marco_polo

mandysmithers wrote: »

I presume you mean we were lied to by the No side? My question is, did they believe that they were telling the truth? Or are they just anti-EU, no matter what, and will do anything to ensure we're not part of it, so decided to just make up lies? Or did they totally misinterpret the treaty? Is there no grain of truth whatsoever in what they are saying?

I think it is recognised that there is a core anti european vote in all EU referenda in perhaps the region of 25-30 percent. Which is a perfectly legitimate reason to vote no, the problem that I have is when such a person tries to hide that that is the true motivation, and resorts to either outright lies, misinterpretations of the treaty articles (deliberate or otherwise) to persuade others to vote the same way.

Stainless_Steel

marco_polo wrote: »

So you are anti pretty much the whole concept the EU as it stands, and nothing in the lisbon treaty in particular, which is an important distinction.

It does not leave you in a position to suggest that this is the general feelings of the population at large or that the guarantees do not address at least a number of the concerns that the people had about the potential interpretation of the treaty.

Not the whole EU concept my friend, remember when it was the EEC? That was a good concept.

I didn't say my concerns mirrored that of the general population
I was asked by yourself for my opinion.

Stainless_Steel

marco_polo wrote: »

I think it is recognised that there is a core anti european vote in all EU referenda in perhaps the region of 25-30 percent. Which is a perfectly legitimate reason to vote no, the problem that I have is when such a person tries to hide that that is the true motivation, and resorts to either outright lies, misinterpretations of the treaty articles (deliberate or otherwise) to persuade others to vote the same way.

I agree 100%.

Sam Vimes

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

:pac:

Yes I realise that, and that doesnt instill any faith in Lisbon for me. I didnt vote in our EU representatives so therefore have a right to call them idiots.

Yes you did

Our EU representatives are our directly elected MEPs and our Taoiseach.

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Democracy doesn't have to end at the border, sure let's have a one world government, with GW Bush as the president and Tony Blair as his Sexcetary of State! :pac:

Joking aside, democracy needs some borders/limitations as there are many different cultures and beliefs throughout Europe.

Which is why we're keeping a veto on important issues such as abortion and taxation. Is there anything specific you're afraid of being forced on us? Having been to many countries in Europe I can confirm that they are very like us and contrary to popular belief do not have ten heads

whatisayis

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Here are some results from it:

http://euobserver.com/9/26729

42% lack of undersanding - Nothing to change there. Just educate them and ask again when they understand better

Neutrality and taxation - doesn't give percentage but non-issues. No change there.

33% - Conscription - Non -issue. No change there.

40% corporate tax - Non-issue. No change there.

Ireland's place in the EU - Vague. No way to know what to change if anything

13% Domination by larger countries - We won't be

5% loss of sovereignty - This is often touted as the top reason by no campaigners. It could be considered valid but I don't think it's a reason to vote no. Some people see the transfer to QMV as automatically bad but I don't see the EU as an adversary whose trying to force things on us

4% loss of a commissioner - Fixed

8% "bad deal for Ireland" - Meaningless Sinn Fein slogan. They just don't like the EU

6% lack of confidence in the Irish government - Non-issue

The link you provided refers to the Millward Brown survey, not the EU commission poll.

The Millward poll asked the question:

"How important/unimportant was each of the following when it came to making up your mind how to vote?"

The following were the reponses by those who voted No who considered these issues as "very important" in descending order:

Workers Rights 52%
Neutrality 47%
Prevent excessive EU regulation 45%
Loss of commissioner 39%
corporation tax 34%
maintain influence in EU 34%
Didn't understand issues 33%
abortion 33%
improve EU efficiency 23%
strenghten EU role 22%

They were not asked if sovereignty was an issue but could it not be assumed that when people were asked about the "prevention of excessive EU regulation", they took this to mean loss of sovreignty? Therefore, in my opinion, the issues that were of most concern according to the poll would be:

1. Workers rights
2. Neutrality
3. Sovereignty
4. Loss of commissioner
5. Corporation tax/maintain influence in EU.

Do you have a link to the European Commission poll so that we can compare the responses?

marco_polo

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Not the whole EU concept my friend, remember when it was the EEC? That was a good concept.

I didn't say my concerns mirrored that of the general population
I was asked by yourself for my opinion.

The EEC had a parliament, courts and laws too.

You implied in an earlier post that the guarantees did not address peoples concerns and would have no bearing on why people may vote yes.

Since you positioned yourself as an authority on the voting reasons of the electorate and you assert that there were no concerns over neutrality, abortion, taxation and the loss of a commissioner, I enquired as to what the true concerns of voters were, and how they might be addressed.

You came back with your own personal reasons.

Stainless_Steel

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes you did

Our EU representatives are our directly elected MEPs and our Taoiseach.


Which is why we're keeping a veto on important issues such as abortion and taxation. Is there anything specific you're afraid of being forced on us? Having been to many countries in Europe I can confirm that they are very like us and contrary to popular belief do not have ten heads

Oh wait....you are saying I voted for the people that run our country and represent us in the EU??? How do you know that?

Do you not agree that the EU is slowly becoming a country in its own right that we are merely a state within?

Sam Vimes

whatisayis wrote: »

Workers Rights 52%
Neutrality 47%
Prevent excessive EU regulation 45%
Loss of commissioner 39%
corporation tax 34%
maintain influence in EU 34%
Didn't understand issues 33%
abortion 33%
improve EU efficiency 23%
strenghten EU role 22%

Workers Rights - Non-issue despite a concerted effort to convince people otherwise
Neutrality - Non-issue
Prevent excessive EU regulation - Non-issue
Loss of commissioner - Fixed
corporation tax - Non-issue
maintain influence in EU - Vague. We still have influence but the way we're acting is bringing that right down
Didn't understand issues - Nothing to change about that, just education
abortion - Non-issue

improve EU efficiency - Are you sure this wasn't a yes reason?
strenghten EU role - This too?

whatisayis wrote: »

They were not asked if sovereignty was an issue but could it not be assumed that when people were asked about the "prevention of excessive EU regulation", they took this to mean loss of sovreignty?

Not really no

whatisayis wrote: »

Do you have a link to the European Commission poll so that we can compare the responses?

No I don't. I'm sure someone can dig it out

marco_polo

whatisayis wrote: »

Do you have a link to the European Commission poll so that we can compare the responses?

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_245_en.pdf

Also a third one from the Geary insitiute in UCD

http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/uploads/documents/ucd%20geary%20institute%20report.pdf

Sam Vimes

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Oh wait....you are saying I voted for the people that run our country and represent us in the EU??? How do you know that?

I'm not saying that you specifically voted for them, I'm saying the Irish people voted them in and they represent you. This is a reason to be against the entire concept of democracy, not the EU.

whatisayis wrote: »

Do you not agree that the EU is slowly becoming a country in its own right that we are merely a state within?

No I don't and very few people in Europe want that, that's why the constitution was changed, because it was too close to statehood.

Stainless_Steel

marco_polo wrote: »

The EEC had a parliament, courts and laws too.

You implied in an earlier post that the guarantees did not address peoples concerns and would have no bearing on why people may vote yes.

Since you positioned yourself as an authority on the voting reasons of the electorate and you assert that there were no concerns over neutrality, abortion, taxation and the loss of a commissioner, I enquired as to what the true concerns of voters were, and how they might be addressed.

You came back with your own personal reasons.

Ok ok....simple question - do you believe that there will be a yes vote because the people's concerns were addressed? And not that our gov is spending lots of money on silly posters, patronising fickle voters, and using the recession as a reason to vote yes.

Sam Vimes

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Ok ok....simple question - do you believe that there will be a yes vote because the people's concerns were addressed? And not that our gov is spending lots of money on silly posters, patronising fickle voters, and using the recession as a reason to vote yes.

I think (hope) there will be a yes vote because most people in this country support the EU and they only voted no last time because the yes campaign was woeful and they were scared by a massive campaign of lies from the no side. Very very few people have a problem with something that's actually in the treaty

Stainless_Steel

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think (hope) there will be a yes vote because most people in this country support the EU and they only voted no last time because the yes campaign was woeful and they were scared by a massive campaign of lies from the no side. Very very few people have a problem with something that's actually in the treaty

Mate I agree 100% with that. I dont condone the lies of the No side.

Scofflaw

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

I am semi-anti-EU....if that makes sense. I agree with helping each other (free trade etc.) but don't think the EU should have a parliament, courts, laws etc. So I vote no on anything that strengthens the EU's position in partially governing our country, and am sorry if you don't share my view but thats the way I am.

The EU has a court to adjudicate on the meaning of the treaties, and a parliament to provide a citizen watchdog body on EU legislation. I'm not sure why either of those are objectionable.

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

IF I was to finally agree to the direction of the EU, the bare minumum requirement I would want would be for Ireland to have a veto on all decisions, which Lisbon doesn't give us.

Well, that's a fully intergovernmentalist position. The only problem is that every historical international organisation that has operated that way has generally fallen to bits after failing to achieve anything.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Ok ok....simple question - do you believe that there will be a yes vote because the people's concerns were addressed? And not that our gov is spending lots of money on silly posters, patronising fickle voters, and using the recession as a reason to vote yes.

I believe that the guarantees will be a large factor in convincing people to vote yes. I would broadly agree that the governement has run a lazy campaign thus far, but there are plenty of businesses, economists, the opposition parties, farming organisations and trade unionist who seem to hold the same views as the government on this treaty without any obvious reason to, except that they share the belief that the acceptance of the treaty represents the best course of action for Ireland.

Do also firmly I believe that the no side has made hardly any convincing arguments against the treaty based upon its contents thus far. The entire campaign has been based around, outright lies, selective quotation and misintrepretation of the treaty and generally spreading of FUD.

whatisayis

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Workers Rights - Non-issue despite a concerted effort to convince people otherwise
Neutrality - Non-issue
Prevent excessive EU regulation - Non-issue
Loss of commissioner - Fixed
corporation tax - Non-issue
maintain influence in EU - Vague. We still have influence but the way we're acting is bringing that right down
Didn't understand issues - Nothing to change about that, just education
abortion - Non-issue

Actually the point I was making is that the reasons being bandied about as the main reasons people voted No do not bear up with the survey results.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

improve EU efficiency - Are you sure this wasn't a yes reason?
strenghten EU role - This too?

Perhaps people put these in as very important because they didn't think Lisbon would improve EU efficiency and didn't want to strengthen the EU role?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Not really no

Definition of sovreignty: The state of making laws and controlling resources without the coercion of other nations.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No I don't. I'm sure someone can dig it out

I looked on the commission website and couldn't find it so hopefully someone can.

whatisayis

marco_polo wrote: »

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_245_en.pdf

Also a third one from the Geary insitiute in UCD

http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/uploads/documents/ucd%20geary%20institute%20report.pdf

Thanks! I couldn't find it. Will have a look.

joseph brand

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6841622.ece

The country might even try to delay it until after the British general election campaign when a Tory victory would see the question put to voters by David Cameron.
Nicolas Sarkozy, who helped to draw up the treaty after the French and Dutch voted against its predecessor, the EU Constitution, has warned Prague that it faces "consequences" if it does not swiftly follow an Irish "yes" with its own ratification.

Interesting comments below the article. They all seem to be against Lisbon part deux.
Here's one:

the 200 pages of the new treaty are virtually unreadable as almost every sentence just says that some other sentence in some other Act is changed in some way. It would take about 3 months, at least, of reading time, plus having all the other acts available to understand what was being changed.

This reminds me of Eurocrat, Charlie McCreepy's answer to being questioned as to wether he read it or not.

"I stay up nightly -- I don't go to bed at all for the last six months reading the Lisbon Treaty, as I know everyone in the country is so doing," he explained earnestly.

laughable

"Noeleen my wife has said to me repeatedly, 'Would you ever leave down that Lisbon Treaty and go and make me a cup of tea,'" he added. "My wife is very upset with me because I haven't spoke to her for months because I'm in the bed reading this treaty all night."

This has bull**it written all over it. Don't buy it for a second.

If we vote 'Yes', thousands of jobs will come flooding back to our shores?? From where?

Also, I, like many others, don't view a 'No' vote as an anti-Europe message, but more of a Pro-democracy-dont-ask-me-twice message.

Put simply: Is there ANY hope that if we vote Yes, there will be a third referendum. :rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

whatisayis wrote: »

Actually the point I was making is that the reasons being bandied about as the main reasons people voted No do not bear up with the survey results.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying the surveys were wrong and if so what do you think the reasons for the no vote were? With an indication as to whether you think it's a valid reason or not please.

whatisayis wrote: »

Perhaps people put these in as very important because they didn't think Lisbon would improve EU efficiency and didn't want to strengthen the EU role?

I don't know about that. They both sound like positive statements to me. Are you sure you didn't read it wrong? One of the major points of Lisbon is to improve efficiency so it would be very odd to think it would be bad for efficiency

whatisayis wrote: »

Definition of sovreignty: The state of making laws and controlling resources without the coercion of other nations.

Sovereignty doesn't have to end at the state. We have representatives in the EU so it's a union, not an empire. Anyway, that response sounds to me like people objecting to the EU rules that some people think are ridiculous. You know the ones I'm talking about. I say it's a non-issue because there's nothing to suggest that they will increase with Lisbon. They can bring in stuff like that anyway. I don't get the impression from that sentence that people had any idea of QMV or its implications

joseph brand

and Ireland received 10 billion euro from the EU, the Irish fishing industry lost 30 billion euro. The dying inshore fishery aside, Ireland has lost most of its offshore grounds as well. Due to negotiations with the EU, Ireland effectively auctioned its offshore fishing rights to the Scandinavians and Spanish.

Do the Scandinavians, and Spain not have enough sea already?

http://www.workingwaterfront.com/articles/Apocalypse-Soon-A-Mainer-Watches-the-Twilight-of-Irelands-Inshore-Fisheries/10673/

I've heard numerous people talk of our sacrificed main natural resource, our fishing industry. This may influence their vote more than some other little ammendments to the Treaty? just a thought.

Also, I never would have thought that the losses would run into tens of billions? Is there a chance that we have given away more money than we have received? I ask this as I've read a few posts declaring all the money we have received from the EU, but no mention of what they got in return?

marco_polo

joseph brand wrote: »

Do the Scandinavians, and Spain not have enough sea already?

http://www.workingwaterfront.com/articles/Apocalypse-Soon-A-Mainer-Watches-the-Twilight-of-Irelands-Inshore-Fisheries/10673/

I've heard numerous people talk of our sacrificed main natural resource, our fishing industry. This may influence their vote more than some other little ammendments to the Treaty? just a thought.

Also, I never would have thought that the losses would run into tens of billions? Is there a chance that we have given away more money than we have received? I ask this as I've read a few posts declaring all the money we have received from the EU, but no mention of what they got in return?

It is about 12 bn in total, of which we have taken about 4 billion worth ourselves.

You can do the maths yourselfs (Click show tabular data in the bottom left)

http://www.seaaroundus.org/TrophicLevel/EEZPricesRV.aspx?eez=372&fao=27&country=Ireland&Hasnote=1&typeOut=4&Tx=1

PopeBuckfastXVI

joseph brand wrote: »

Do the Scandinavians, and Spain not have enough sea already?

http://www.workingwaterfront.com/articles/Apocalypse-Soon-A-Mainer-Watches-the-Twilight-of-Irelands-Inshore-Fisheries/10673/

I've heard numerous people talk of our sacrificed main natural resource, our fishing industry. This may influence their vote more than some other little ammendments to the Treaty? just a thought.

Also, I never would have thought that the losses would run into tens of billions? Is there a chance that we have given away more money than we have received? I ask this as I've read a few posts declaring all the money we have received from the EU, but no mention of what they got in return?

Any proof or evidence for those 10bn and 30bn figures, apart from quoting 'Sean the lobsterman'?

Sam Vimes

joseph brand wrote: »

Also, I never would have thought that the losses would run into tens of billions?

It hasn't. Read this thread:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055680592

whatisayis

marco_polo wrote: »

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_245_en.pdf

Also a third one from the Geary insitiute in UCD
http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/uploads/documents/ucd%20geary%20institute%20report.pdf

The second one you reference is the Millward Brown one. The first one I hadn't seen before and it is very interesting. Reasons for a no vote on that one were:

22% didn't know enough
12% to protect Irish identity
6% to safequard Irish neutrality
6% do not trust our politicians
6% loss of commissioner
6% to protect our tax system
5% against the idea of a unified Europe
4% protest against the government policies
4% avoid EU speaking with one voice on global issues
4% because large member states decide on EU matters
3% to protect the influence of small states
2% allow the introduction of EU legislation in Ireland abortion etc.
1% avoid an influx of immigrants
1% the Eu doesn't need fixing
14% Other
3% DK/NA

It appears they were not asked if workers rights, which was the predominant reason for a No vote in the Millward survey, was an issue. Maybe they are included in the 14% "other" reasons?

Interestingly, when asked what the consequences of the No vote would be, 48% of the YES voters said that it would block a more federal Europe.

whatisayis

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying the surveys were wrong and if so what do you think the reasons for the no vote were? With an indication as to whether you think it's a valid reason or not please.

I am not saying the surveys are wrong, I saying that the issues the survey found as having the highest percentage points were not all addressed by the government.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't know about that. They both sound like positive statements to me. Are you sure you didn't read it wrong? One of the major points of Lisbon is to improve efficiency so it would be very odd to think it would be bad for efficiency

If people do not want to strengthen the EU role, they would find that a reason to vote No I would assume. As regards improving efficiency maybe
people think that, on balance, losing some veto rights in order to allow easier passing of legislation outweigh the benefits of improved efficiency.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sovereignty doesn't have to end at the state. We have representatives in the EU so it's a union, not an empire. Anyway, that response sounds to me like people objecting to the EU rules that some people think are ridiculous. You know the ones I'm talking about. I say it's a non-issue because there's nothing to suggest that they will increase with Lisbon. They can bring in stuff like that anyway. I don't get the impression from that sentence that people had any idea of QMV or its implications

I think the real reason people voted no has little or nothing to do with taxation, abortion etc. The objection to the proposed loss of the commissioner is the best indicator of how people felt - that Ireland was being sidelined and would lose its ability to govern itself without permission from Europe. Most people wouldn't have a clue what QMV is but they would have an idea what losing a veto means - losing their ability to object to policies they don't like. What it comes down to is Irish people don't like to be told what to do and I just don't think the government guarantees have addressed that fundamental ideology. Don't ask me how they could address that because I really haven't a clue!!

Sam Vimes

whatisayis wrote: »

I am not saying the surveys are wrong, I saying that the issues the survey found as having the highest percentage points were not all addressed by the government.

They don't have to address them all, just enough to get the vote down from 53% (?) to 49.9%. The wonders of democracy

whatisayis wrote: »

If people do not want to strengthen the EU role, they would find that a reason to vote No I would assume. As regards improving efficiency maybe
people think that, on balance, losing some veto rights in order to allow easier passing of legislation outweigh the benefits of improved efficiency.

It didn't say that easier passing of legislation outweighed improvement in efficiency, it gave improvement of efficiency as a reason. Where did you get that information so I can see the list for myself?

whatisayis wrote: »

I think the real reason people voted no has little or nothing to do with taxation, abortion etc. The objection to the proposed loss of the commissioner is the best indicator of how people felt - that Ireland was being sidelined and would lose its ability to govern itself without permission from Europe. Most people wouldn't have a clue what QMV is but they would have an idea what losing a veto means - losing their ability to object to policies they don't like. What it comes down to is Irish people don't like to be told what to do and I just don't think the government guarantees have addressed that fundamental ideology. Don't ask me how they could address that because I really haven't a clue!!

I suppose it could be addressed by removing the moves to QMV but the thing is that, as Scofflaw has pointed out, pretty much every international organisation that's based on vetoes has collapsed after achieving nothing. Vetoes are not a good way to run a union like this. Can you imagine if every county in Ireland had a veto?

If our objection is to QMV in general I think we should pull out of the EU because they're going that way, which is imo the right way to go, and we're not going to stop them forever.

whatisayis

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It didn't say that easier passing of legislation outweighed improvement in efficiency, it gave improvement of efficiency as a reason. Where did you get that information so I can see the list for myself?

No, it didn't. I said that maybe people gave this as a reason to vote No because they didn't think that Lisbon would improve EU efficiency.

From the Department of Foreign Affairs website:
http://www.dfa.ie/uploads/documents/Publications/Post%20Lisbon%20Treaty%20Referendum%20Research%20Findings/5.pdf

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I suppose it could be addressed by removing the moves to QMV but the thing is that, as Scofflaw has pointed out, pretty much every international organisation that's based on vetoes has collapsed after achieving nothing. Vetoes are not a good way to run a union like this. Can you imagine if every county in Ireland had a veto?

If our objection is to QMV in general I think we should pull out of the EU because they're going that way, which is imo the right way to go, and we're not going to stop them forever.

You could say that our objection is to QMV in general I suppose because what I believe is that the real reason people voted No was because, rightly or wrongly, they believed Ireland would have less of a say in deciding its future without outside influence. That and, of course, a very large scepticism about the honesty of Fianna Fail which translated as "if they say I should vote yes, I better vote No." The large scale collapse of the economy is only going to encourage that scepticism which is why I think the "Vote yes for jobs" and "Vote yes for the economy" were possibly the worst slogans Fianna Fail could have picked. They have been unable to back those statements up in any quantifiable way and it is just perceived to be Fianna Fail trying to blame the No vote, rather than their inept governance, as a reason for the recession.

Sam Vimes

whatisayis wrote: »

No, it didn't. I said that maybe people gave this as a reason to vote No because they didn't think that Lisbon would improve EU efficiency.

From the Department of Foreign Affairs website:
http://www.dfa.ie/uploads/documents/Publications/Post%20Lisbon%20Treaty%20Referendum%20Research%20Findings/5.pdf

Fair enough, they have 23% of no voters with "improve EU efficiency" as a reason, they must have thought it wouldn't. I don't think anything can be inferred from that though with regard to decisions being forced on us

whatisayis wrote: »

You could say that our objection is to QMV in general I suppose because what I believe is that the real reason people voted No was because, rightly or wrongly, they believed Ireland would have less of a say in deciding its future without outside influence.

Given that you and I know that we still have a say and still have vetoes on important issues, do you think that's a valid reason to vote no?

whatisayis wrote: »

That and, of course, a very large scepticism about the honesty of Fianna Fail which translated as "if they say I should vote yes, I better vote No."

I'm not even going to ask if you think that's a valid reason. It's not.

whatisayis wrote: »

The large scale collapse of the economy is only going to encourage that scepticism which is why I think the "Vote yes for jobs" and "Vote yes for the economy" were possibly the worst slogans Fianna Fail could have picked.

I agree. It does make sense but as a slogan it's very easy to dismiss.

whatisayis wrote: »

They have been unable to back those statements up in any quantifiable way and it is just perceived to be Fianna Fail trying to blame the No vote, rather than their inept governance, as a reason for the recession.

You're the first person I've seen who's given that interpretation. And it has been substantiated. Here's a previous post from myself:

Sam Vimes wrote:

If we vote it down again that cements us as a country that's going against the grain in Europe even though being in Europe is one of our most important advantages and creates uncertainty about our future as the EU moves on and we try to fight them every step of the way. I can't say for sure what the consequences of a second no will be but neither can you say that there will be no consequences and it's the "safe" option

As I said on another thread, Ireland is becoming unpredictable and unreliable. There is now pretty much no point in having any future treaties because the Irish people didn't even read this one, they rejected it for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with the treaty. They can't address our problems because they're imaginary and/or irrelevant. We're not technically breaking the rules but we're making life extremely difficult for our neighbours because we're too lazy to read the treaty and would rather get our opinion from a lie on a poster. Even if they only include things that Ireland can opt out of in future treaties they're not sure to pass because some group could easily tell us that they're not really allowing us to opt out and we might believe them as we've believed all the other lies. Besides which they don't want to limit themselves to only changes that countries can opt out of. Really the only way to have any confidence of getting a treaty passed in future is for Ireland to be excluded entirely.

So that's the consequence of a no vote. Ireland becomes the only country that has voted down three EU treaties and is putting the entire future of the EU in jeopardy because we can stall progress all we want and we're impossible to negotiate with because our objections have little or nothing to do with the treaties we're voting down. And that situation can only go on so long before the other 500 million people tell us to fcuk off and let them get on with their plans
Then we have an article in the Irish Times:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0909/1224254135032.html

Mr Cowen said all the main business groupings and the Irish heads of several multi-national firms were “crystal clear” in their view that reluctance to endorse the treaty, together with the resulting perception that “we are somewhat a-la-carte in terms of our commitment to Europe”, would make it more difficult to attract and secure inward investment.

“Those who argue otherwise would do well to listen to the employers’ representative groups, to the exporters of Ireland, to the farmers’ representative groups and to the employers themselves.

“Those who have experience of pursuing and securing inward investment, developing and exploiting export markets, or growing and expanding businesses, are united in their view that rejecting Lisbon will cost jobs.”

The treaty will have implications beyond the text written in it. The difference between the yes side talking about a yes vote helping recovery and the various no side predictions is that a yes vote helping recovery is a possibility and all of the people best positioned to confirm the probability of the prediction support it while the no side predictions are simply lies.

whatisayis

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Fair enough, they have 23% of no voters with "improve EU efficiency" as a reason, they must have thought it wouldn't. I don't think anything can be inferred from that though with regard to decisions being forced on us

? I'm sorry but I really don't know what you are saying there.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Given that you and I know that we still have a say and still have vetoes on important issues, do you think that's a valid reason to vote no?

I am not trying to avoid answering your question, but my opinion is not what this thread is about.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not even going to ask if you think that's a valid reason. It's not.

Again, my opinion is irrelevant here.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I agree. It does make sense but as a slogan it's very easy to dismiss.

? You've lost me again there, sorry. What makes sense?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You're the first person I've seen who's given that interpretation. And it has been substantiated. Here's a previous post from myself:

What has been substantiated? Maybe I should go drink a few cups of coffee because I really am confused by your posts.

Sam Vimes

whatisayis wrote: »

? I'm sorry but I really don't know what you are saying there.

You said "As regards improving efficiency maybe people think that, on balance, losing some veto rights in order to allow easier passing of legislation outweigh the benefits of improved efficiency.". I don't see how that can be inferred from the "improve efficency" statement

whatisayis wrote: »

? You've lost me again there, sorry. What makes sense?

You said "I think the "Vote yes for jobs" and "Vote yes for the economy" were possibly the worst slogans Fianna Fail could have picked." I said that the slogans do make sense and the chances are that a yes vote will generate jobs and help the economy, which is why Intel and Ryanair have become involved and why business groups almost all support the treaty but that the meaning is not apparent from the slogan, making it easy to dismiss as scaremongering

whatisayis wrote: »

What has been substantiated? Maybe I should go drink a few cups of coffee because I really am confused by your posts.

Yes for jobs and yes for the economy has been substantiated