Vote No because

w00t

there will be no ramifications for Ireland due to a no vote.

We won't leave the EU because of it.

We do OK out if the EU as it stands.

Why change the current way of things? For a smoother running of Europe?

Smoother? it works OK as it is now and will do.

cornbb

Why settle for "will do" when we could have a more streamlined, efficient and democratic EU?

The only reason it runs smoothly is because we ratified treaties like this before. We need to do so again in order to make the EU cope with a changing world.

I know we won't be kicked out of europe if we vote no or anything like that, but we risk seriously marginalising ourselves by blocking the progress that the vast majority of other EU states are clearly eager to go ahead with.

Stainless_Steel

cornbb wrote: »

We need to do so again in order to make the EU cope with a changing world.

I dont believe that the world changes so fast that the EU need to tighten their grip on member states every few years...

w00t

cornbb wrote: »

Why settle for "will do" when we could have a more streamlined, efficient and democratic EU?

The only reason it runs smoothly is because we ratified treaties like this before. We need to do so again in order to make the EU cope with a changing world.

I know we won't be kicked out of europe if we vote no or anything like that, but we risk seriously marginalising ourselves by blocking the progress that the vast majority of other EU states are clearly eager to go ahead with.

We do OK out of the current EU. Why rock the boat? We are already marginalised by our size, we can't change that no matter what way we vote on Lisbon? Can we make the country bigger?

I have ignored the rest of you post due to a lack of voting.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Who is this EU that grips the Member States?

The European Parliament, elected by the people of the Member States?
The European Commission, appointed by the governments of the Member States, elected by the people of the Member States and approved by the European Parliament, elected by the people of the Member States?
The European Council, consisting of the governments of the Member States, elected by the people of the Member States?

Stainless_Steel

cornbb wrote: »

we risk seriously marginalising ourselves by blocking the progress that the vast majority of other EU states are clearly eager to go ahead with.

Just noticed this. Note hoe the vast majority of other EU states' citizens didnt get to vote on the go ahead.

Dont gimme that elected representatives stuff....

PopeBuckfastXVI

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Just noticed this. Note hoe the vast majority of other EU states' citizens didnt get to vote on the go ahead.

Dont gimme that elected representatives stuff....

By that rational the entire EU shouldn't exist:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055628925

Don't give me any of that 'contradicts my argument' stuff either...

MarkK

w00t wrote: »

Why rock the boat?

Indeed, by refusing to ratify a treaty that our elected government has already agreed to and had a significant hand in shaping, Ireland would be rocking the boat.

prinz

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

I dont believe that the world changes so fast that the EU need to tighten their grip on member states every few years...

There are 27 Member States now. There weren't that many a few years ago. Somethings need to change to allow for that. It's not about "tightening a grip", it's the Lisbon Reform Treaty, in that it reforms the current processes and previous treaties to allow a more balanced structure for all members.

Stainless_Steel

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

By that rational the entire EU shouldn't exist:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055628925

Don't give me any of that 'contradicts my argument' stuff either...

I agree - it shouldnt exist - note the number of times 2nd referendums were held - god knows how many there would have been had more countries been required to vote!

prinz

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

I agree - it shouldnt exist - note the number of times 2nd referendums were held - god knows how many there would have been had more countries been required to vote!

I never knew so many people in Ireland were so caught up in and invested in the political and constitutional systems abroad. Remarkable really. Seems to me there has been an explosion of interest in the "rights" of our European neighbours all of a sudden.:rolleyes:

CCCP^

Here's why you should vote No: Lisbon is the consolidation of power to the European Parliament with the overall aim of achieving the political union of it's member states. Economic integration has reached it's peak and now all thats left is the political integration of the member states under the European Parliament.

cornbb

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

I dont believe that the world changes so fast that the EU need to tighten their grip on member states every few years...

Like PopeBuckfast pointed out, this image of the big oppressive EU is nonsense. The EU consists of member nations, it answers to the citizens of these nations. Its not the other way around.

w00t wrote: »

We do OK out of the current EU. Why rock the boat? We are already marginalised by our size, we can't change that no matter what way we vote on Lisbon? Can we make the country bigger?

You haven't actually given a reason to vote no, nor have you given a reason not to vote yes. Have you considered that voting no won't actually keep things the way they are? There's never been such a substantial block to EU progress in its history, voting No without (very) good reason would cause serious doubt as to how the EU could ever be improved again.

I have ignored the rest of you post due to a lack of voting.

???

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Dont gimme that elected representatives stuff....

Whyever not? Elected representatives make decisions on your behalf every day, on issues far more pressing than the Lisbon treaty. Its just a housekeeping exercise, albeit one which would give the EU a very good shakeup. If we didn't happen to have a constitutional requirement for a referendum, it would have been ratified ages ago, the EU would be progressing along nicely and we would be getting on with our lives without batting an eyelid. This whole referendum business is unfortunate. Certain things should be referred to the people, other things should be left in the hands of those that we've elected to do so. This is definitely one of the latter things and its going to be a serious thorn in the EU's side for ages to come.

w00t

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Who is this EU that grips the Member States?

The European Parliament, elected by the people of the Member States?
The European Commission, appointed by the governments of the Member States, elected by the people of the Member States and approved by the European Parliament, elected by the people of the Member States?
The European Council, consisting of the governments of the Member States, elected by the people of the Member States?

Why does Ireland need them in those ways?

We are doing OK out of the Eu.

PopeBuckfastXVI

w00t wrote: »

Why does Ireland need them in those ways?

We are doing OK out of the Eu.

That's the current setup of the EU that's 'doing ok', and which won't change under Lisbon.

Stainless_Steel

cornbb wrote: »

This whole referendum business is unfortunate. Certain things should be referred to the people, other things should be left in the hands of those that we've elected to do so. This is definitely one of the latter things and its going to be a serious thorn in the EU's side for ages to come.

Love the way you think the Irish people are stupid for voting no and Cowen et al know better.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Love the way you think the Irish people are stupid for voting no and Cowen et al know better.

I don't see the word 'stupid' in his post. That word gets bandied about a lot in relation to the Irish electorate, almost exclusively by commentators on the 'no' side.

w00t

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

That's the current setup of the EU that's 'doing ok', and which won't change under Lisbon.

I think you need to read the treaty again

PopeBuckfastXVI

w00t wrote: »

I think you need to read the treaty again

?

Stainless_Steel

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I don't see the word 'stupid' in his post. That word gets bandied about a lot in relation to the Irish electorate, almost exclusively by commentators on the 'no' side.

I read between the lines

cornbb

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Love the way you think the Irish people are stupid for voting no and Cowen et al know better.

I'm not implying that the Irish people are stupid, and I'm certainly no fan of Cowen. But can you imagine if we had a vote on, say, the budget every year? It would never be ratified because people would reject it based on the little bits of it that didn't suit them. Yet we still have to pass a budget. Delegating the day-to-day running of the country to elected figures is what democracy is all about (the fact that the country elected a bunch of inept failures is unfortunate, but completely beside the point). Its what should have been done with Lisbon. In California, Schwarzenegger has started to let the citizens micromanage the running of the state with endless referendums/plebiscites, and it's ruining the place. They can't get a thing done.

Stainless_Steel

cornbb wrote: »

I'm not implying that the Irish people are stupid, and I'm certainly no fan of Cowen. But can you imagine if we had a vote on, say, the budget every year? It would never be ratified because people would reject it based on the little bits of it that didn't suit them. Yet we still have to pass a budget. Delegating the day-to-day running of the country to elected figures is what democracy is all about (the fact that the country elected a bunch of inept failures is unfortunate, but completely beside the point). Its what should have been done with Lisbon. In California, Schwarzenegger has started to let the citizens micromanage the running of the state with endless referendums/plebiscites, and it's ruining the place. They can't get a thing done.

I agree friend, apologies for the over-exaggerated reading between the lines

But I still believe it is right that the Lisbon treaty goes to referendum, as it does involve giving other countries certain decision making powers that affects our lives in Ireland. We didn't directly elect the entire EU parliament etc, so I feel we should have a say.

But I agree with your point on certain things should be left in the elected folks' hands.

cornbb

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

I agree friend, apologies for the over-exaggerated reading between the lines

No worries at all

But I still believe it is right that the Lisbon treaty goes to referendum, as it does involve giving other countries certain decision making powers that affects our lives in Ireland. We didn't directly elect the entire EU parliament etc, so I feel we should have a say.

But its a reciprocal thing - its not like we're handing the running of the country over to other countries - if you want to look at it like that, then we get a say in the running of their countries too. Our voting weight in the European Parliament represents our small size, it would be fundamentally unfair and undemocratic to use our referendum to effectively hold the rest of Europe to ransom.

w00t

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

?

There will be no change to Ireland status if the No vote wins.

Stainless_Steel

cornbb wrote: »

But its a reciprocal thing - its not like we're handing the running of the country over to other countries - if you want to look at it like that, then we get a say in the running of their countries too. Our voting weight in the European Parliament represents our small size, it would be fundamentally unfair and undemocratic to use our referendum to effectively hold the rest of Europe to ransom.

Yeah but I'm not voting or wishing to run other countries. I agree that the principle of small population = small weight. Thats why its good to give dubs more TDs than umm pick one lol.

On your point of holding the rest of Europe to ransom:

While I have Ireland's interests at heart, if you were to allow every other state to vote and a yes won, I couldnt have much argument in this context.

Now I know other countries' ratifications process is their own business and not ours - but until I seen a vote from every EU country, I could never believe we are holding them to ransom.

cornbb

w00t wrote: »

There will be no change to Ireland status if the No vote wins.

Not on paper, you're right, but another rejection wouldn't make us look very good in the eyes of other EU states who want to move forward, in the eyes of potential US investors who might no longer view us as an ideal gateway to the EU, etc...

CCCP^

cornbb wrote: »

Not on paper, you're right, but another rejection wouldn't make us look very good in the eyes of other EU states who want to move forward, in the eyes of potential US investors who might no longer view us as an ideal gateway to the EU, etc...

Oh yes, let us not disgruntle our precious US investors who feck off to eastern europe once IDA funding is gone. We should have spent our time and money building up Irish industry, not wasting money on american multi-nationals who would just feck off once the tax incentives were gone.

The French and Dutch voted No but you don't see those countries looking bad in the eyes of all the EU states. ****ing Sarkozy is head of the Lisbon bandwagon and his country voted No to all this mess. This treaty is nothing but the start of political unification of the EU - an EU as one single political entity with one single leadership, and if people say "well this is the age we live in, small countries can't compete on the world stage anymore this is globalization" then **** them, they dont care at all about sovereignty or national rights, but its small countries like us that will get ****ed over in the end, it always is.

Nulty

cornbb wrote: »

???


Whyever not? Elected representatives make decisions on your behalf every day, on issues far more pressing than the Lisbon treaty. Its just a housekeeping exercise, albeit one which would give the EU a very good shakeup. If we didn't happen to have a constitutional requirement for a referendum, it would have been ratified ages ago, the EU would be progressing along nicely and we would be getting on with our lives without batting an eyelid. This whole referendum business is unfortunate. Certain things should be referred to the people, other things should be left in the hands of those that we've elected to do so. This is definitely one of the latter things and its going to be a serious thorn in the EU's side for ages to come.

What ever else you say is unimportant compared to your suggestion that changing the constitution of Ireland should not be left to the people of Ireland. We have a great country because the people who drew up our constitution gave us the opportunity to oppose the changing of it without our consent.

I haven't read THAT much about it but there is one question I have -

Will there still be 'An Irish Constitution' after Lisbon is ratified or is that the end of it? Will our constitution now be "The EU Constitution"?

meglome

Nulty wrote: »

What ever else you say is unimportant compared to your suggestion that changing the constitution of Ireland should not be left to the people of Ireland. We have a great country because the people who drew up our constitution gave us the opportunity to oppose the changing of it without our consent.

I haven't read THAT much about it but there is one question I have -

Will there still be 'An Irish Constitution' after Lisbon is ratified or is that the end of it? Will our constitution now be "The EU Constitution"?

Huh? Everything we need a referendum on now we will still need a referendum on after a Yes vote to Lisbon.

EU law has superseded ours since 1972 and all these bad things that are claimed have not happened. And not to state the obvious but there is no EU constitution.

Daftendirekt

Nulty wrote: »

Will there still be 'An Irish Constitution' after Lisbon is ratified or is that the end of it? Will our constitution now be "The EU Constitution"?

There will still be an Irish Constitution after Lisbon. It will not be the EU Constitution, which was defeated by the France and the Netherlands.

roosh

cornbb wrote: »

Why settle for "will do" when we could have a more streamlined, efficient and democratic EU?

The only reason it runs smoothly is because we ratified treaties like this before. We need to do so again in order to make the EU cope with a changing world.

I know we won't be kicked out of europe if we vote no or anything like that, but we risk seriously marginalising ourselves by blocking the progress that the vast majority of other EU states are clearly eager to go ahead with.

If we ratifiy this treaty we have very little say in the future.

It is equally reasonable to say that Europe will try to curry favour with us in the future, to ensure that treaties like this get passed. If we vote Yes we have very little say whatsoever