Proponents of the No vote

hatrickpatrick

zenno wrote: »

well these are laws we can do without for starters. I think a person is well capable of lowering the volume him/herself. todays news. The european commission (EC) has noted today that all MP3 players sold in the European Union will soon come with a required "default setting," in an effort to "discourage" users from listening to music at volume levels that will eventually hurt their hearing. as if people are braindead and can't understand the logic of this LOL. does the eu commission think people are that thick or is it hard-control over the peoples choices again. idiotic laws from the eu

Now in Ireland if you want to change this, you write to your TD, you form protest groups, you agitate and lobby against it to try to force the government to roll back.

How can we change this when it's from the EU though? Writing to your MEP is no use, all the MEPs in Ireland alone couldn't do it. Forming a protest group or March - why change a law just because one country is protesting about it?

One prime example of how the bigger a government gets, the less direct control the people have over it.

Plotician

Sam Vimes wrote: »

... You and I both know that this treaty and Ireland's acceptance or rejection of it will have implications far beyond the text written in it

Now i know the above was written in the context of an economic debate regarding goodwill, confidence etc, however if i was to say the same words with reference to some other area (neutrality, workers rights etc, take your pick) I suspect i'd be shot down?

Question is, do we stick to what's in the treaty or not.

Whatever the answer it applies to both sides - fair enough?

Sir Oxman

marco_polo wrote: »

Did many evil empires of the past have entirely voluntary membership and an exit clause?

Ah, some would say that's why that particular direction is not been taken this time. Never, ever in our time what with fantastic technology (just like the internetz...lulz) could anything like that happen...we're all too smart dontcha know.
Just a thought.

Pride Fighter

EU RULES wrote: »

My good friend Tommy O'Brien posted this on Politics.ie

The No side is endorsed by
- A right wing group of nuts in Cóir
- Rejected politicians Patricia McKenna, Mary Lou McDonald and Declan Ganley
- Conspiracy theorists like Jim Corr
- Extremist so-called republicans like Republican Sinn Féin
- Anthony Coughlan (who has been proven wrong about every treaty)
- The Socialist Workers Party and its cover groups

Come on this is obvious. If you have a real care for Ireland and not some false romantic insane nationalism(like some do on here) then you will vote yes to Lisbon. I am voting yes as a proud Irishman and European.

I mean look at Future Taoiseach for instance. The guy is living in his own little world, 'viva la republique' indeed.

The yes side is endorsed by
-Brian Lenihan
-Brian Cowen
-Fianna Fail
-The Green Party
-Former members of the PD's
-IBEC

All of the above have led to the destruction of our country economically, they are economic traitors. That is reason enough to vote no.

Sir Oxman

Pride Fighter wrote: »

The yes side is endorsed by
-Brian Lenihan
-Brian Cowen
-Fianna Fail
-The Green Party
-Former members of the PD's
-IBEC

All of the above have led to the destruction of our country economically, they are economic traitors. That is reason enough to vote no.

Don't forget about Penny Apples me 'oul segosha. Oh and Frank Ross.
Nuff said.

Plotician

and finally! can anyone explain what this means...

"If you believe that Ireland and Europe work better together then play a role in the final days of this campaign.... remember to vote "Yes" on Friday".

Does a 'no' mean we won't be working together any more? What's the inference in the question?

namloc1980

Pride Fighter wrote: »

The yes side is endorsed by
-Brian Lenihan
-Brian Cowen
-Fianna Fail
-The Green Party
-Former members of the PD's
-IBEC

All of the above have led to the destruction of our country economically, they are economic traitors. That is reason enough to vote no.

Voting No to somehow 'punish' the government is like punching yourself in the nose if there is a fly on it. The only people a No vote will punish is the people of Ireland.

Dinner

Plotician wrote: »

and finally! can anyone explain what this means...

"If you believe that Ireland and Europe work better together then play a role in the final days of this campaign.... remember to vote "Yes" on Friday".

Does a 'no' mean we won't be working together any more? What's the inference in the question?

The whole point of Lisbon is to improve the EU and to make it work better.

So to see a quote saying that a yes vote will improve the EU isn't very suprising. Just because somebody says something positive will happen with a yes vote, doesn't automatically mean that a no vote has the opposite effect.

namloc1980

Plotician wrote: »

and finally! can anyone explain what this means...

"If you believe that Ireland and Europe work better together then play a role in the final days of this campaign.... remember to vote "Yes" on Friday".

Does a 'no' mean we won't be working together any more? What's the inference in the question?

Ireland will be isolated. It will remain in the EU but will be isolated within it.

Steviemak

Pride Fighter wrote: »

The yes side is endorsed by
-Brian Lenihan
-Brian Cowen
-Fianna Fail
-The Green Party
-Former members of the PD's
-IBEC

All of the above have led to the destruction of our country economically, they are economic traitors. That is reason enough to vote no.

Siptu
PSEU
ICTU
IMPACT
MANDATE
Small Firms Association
American Chamber of Commerce
Intel
Ryanair
IDA
IFA
FINE Gael
Labour


Also supporting a YES vote

Plotician

ok, so any specific examples of how Ireland will be isolated? Not opinion, specifics.

Pride Fighter

namloc1980 wrote: »

Voting No to somehow 'punish' the government is like punching yourself in the nose if there is a fly on it. The only people a No vote will punish is the people of Ireland.

Voting no will protect Ireland from the expanding power of the EU. A loss of vetoes and influence will kill us.

Steviemak wrote: »

Siptu
PSEU
ICTU
IMPACT
MANDATE
Small Firms Association
American Chamber of Commerce
Intel
Ryanair
IDA
IFA
FINE Gael
Labour


Also supporting a YES vote

Several of those groups are responsible in differing ways for destroying our economy.

Pride Fighter

Plotician wrote: »

ok, so any specific examples of how Ireland will be isolated? Not opinion, specifics.

If we vote no the Nice system in Europe will prevail. Nice requires unanimouty by ALL member states. As we are in the EU we have a veto. The veto is the franchise entrusted to us in the upcoming referendum on Friday. Lets use it.

Sam Vimes

Plotician wrote: »

Now i know the above was written in the context of an economic debate regarding goodwill, confidence etc, however if i was to say the same words with reference to some other area (neutrality, workers rights etc, take your pick) I suspect i'd be shot down?

Question is, do we stick to what's in the treaty or not.

Whatever the answer it applies to both sides - fair enough?

The difference is that I'm talking about confidence in the economy which is variable and unpredictable whereas you'd be talking about a legal document written down in black and white. It's the difference between "U2 could go on to sell ten million albums" and "Bono is small Chinese lady". One is a reasonable opinion of what could happen and the other is factually incorrect

Steviemak

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Voting no will protect Ireland from the expanding power of the EU. A loss of vetoes and influence will kill us.


Several of those groups are responsible in differing ways for destroying our economy.

So every organisation that created a job or supported workers is now a traitor.

Please provide a list of organisations supporting a NO vote that have created even a fraction of the jobs that the IDA or SFA or IBEC or the American Chamber of Commerce have created.

The government, the banks and the developers caused the problem as we all know.

Also it'd be nice if you could list the number of times Ireland has used it's veto?

Sam Vimes

Dinner wrote: »

The whole point of Lisbon is to improve the EU and to make it work better.

So to see a quote saying that a yes vote will improve the EU isn't very suprising. Just because somebody says something positive will happen with a yes vote, doesn't automatically mean that a no vote has the opposite effect.

That's what we in the business call a straw man

Sam Vimes

Pride Fighter wrote: »

If we vote no the Nice system in Europe will prevail. Nice requires unanimouty by ALL member states. As we are in the EU we have a veto. The veto is the franchise entrusted to us in the upcoming referendum on Friday. Lets use it.

What do you mean we "have a veto"? QMV already applies in many areas. You know that right?

namloc1980

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Voting no will protect Ireland from the expanding power of the EU. A loss of vetoes and influence will kill us.

Ireland will lose it's Commissioner under the current Nice Treaty if we reject Lisbon (which guarantees commissioner for everyone) - that is a massive loss of influence straight away. The concerns of the people the last time out means that things like defense, tax, abortion, judicial affairs, police affairs remain unanimous.

namloc1980

Pride Fighter wrote: »

If we vote no the Nice system in Europe will prevail. Nice requires unanimouty by ALL member states. As we are in the EU we have a veto. The veto is the franchise entrusted to us in the upcoming referendum on Friday. Lets use it.

:eek: I'm fairly sure QMV is extensively used under Nice as it is!!

Let's all use the veto because we can....that's good reason for voting no! :rolleyes:

Plotician

Pride Fighter wrote: »

If we vote no the Nice system in Europe will prevail. Nice requires unanimouty by ALL member states. As we are in the EU we have a veto. The veto is the franchise entrusted to us in the upcoming referendum on Friday. Lets use it.

Not sure if the above can be defined as a 'specific' regarding isolation?

Plotician

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The difference is that I'm talking about confidence in the economy which is variable and unpredictable whereas you'd be talking about a legal document written down in black and white. It's the difference between "U2 could go on to sell ten million albums" and "Bono is small Chinese lady". One is a reasonable opinion of what could happen and the other is factually incorrect

Hmm, how can you be so sure something is factually incorrect before it's even stated?

Sir Oxman

namloc1980 wrote: »

Voting No to somehow 'punish' the government is like punching yourself in the nose if there is a fly on it. The only people a No vote will punish is the people of Ireland.

Rubbish.

Tarobot

gambiaman wrote: »

Rubbish.

Rubbish.




See how that sort of response does nothing to further the debate? There is a lot to gain from voting YES and nothing to gain from voting NO.

namloc1980

gambiaman wrote: »

Rubbish.

Great point....you really showed me. :rolleyes:

Daftendirekt

mangaroosh wrote: »

It was actually the changing of the name of the EU Constitution to the Lisbon Treaty, and a few other legal words that facilitated this bypassing of the French and Dutch constitutions. If you didn't realise it, please realise it now, that this is effectively just a slightly re-worded version of the EU constitution. It was re-written to take into account Dutch and French concerns, but yet was strangely not put to referendum.

Ask Daftendirekt about that. I think it was him that was the first to confirm that for me.

Excuse me?


Lisbon is an altered the Constitution: it's the parts the members were happy to keep, minus the state-like language, references to a flag and anthem, and certain other tweaks that were negotiated.


The French have no legal requirement for referenda. If you want to know why they didn't put Lisbon to the vote, you'd have to ask the people who voted for Sarkozy, knowing full well he intended to ratify Lisbon through the Parliament.

National referenda are also generally not used the Netherlands: in fact, a law had to be passed to allow a non-binding referendum to be held on the Constitution. Since non-binding referenda can be seen as actually being binding, the Dutch Courts ruled that Lisbon couldn't be put to a referendum, and the result of the Constitution referendum didn't stand.

I have never said that the Constitution was renamed and altered to bypass the requirement to put it to a national referendum. Such a claim would be a blatant falsehood.

Sir Oxman

namloc1980 wrote: »

Great point....you really showed me. :rolleyes:

it's what your post deserved and required.
Nothing more nothing less.

You are peddling lies.

Sir Oxman

Tarobot wrote: »

Rubbish.




See how that sort of response does nothing to further the debate? There is a lot to gain from voting YES and nothing to gain from voting NO.

What? <--- Don't be put off by the one word reply.

Sam Vimes

Plotician wrote: »

Hmm, how can you be so sure something is factually incorrect before it's even stated?

The example you gave, neutrality, would be facually incorrect. Also, contrary to popular belief from people on the no side, I have yet to see an opinion, valid or not, branded a lie. For example if someone says a no vote will topple the government I can't say they're lying because that doesn't make any sense, I'd say I think they're wrong. On the other hand if someone says that the treaty will allow the EU to raise our corporation taxes, they are either lying or unknowingly repeating a lie

A Primal Nut

mangaroosh wrote: »

This is the danger.

None of those parties are looking for the keys to the kingdom that is Europe. Honestly, do not base your vote on your disdain for any of those parties/organisations, they will not have any more power if we vote No.

Just as people should not vote No because they dislike Fianna Fáil. This isn't about any of the individual parties, this is about the decision making power we are willing to give to the politicians of Europe, and how much of a say we want to retain.

Just think about the irony of the whole thing. On the one hand we are being told that we are going to see a more open, more honest and more transparent EU, but not until after we ratify Lisbon. Basically, those people who are trying to sneak this treaty through are promising there will be more transparency, but only after Lisbon.

The funny thing is that if we ratify Lisbon, then there will indeed be more trnasparency, except that it will be in the form of a big glass window with us looking in, and having no meaningful say in how things are run. They try and tell us that national parliaments will have more say in what goes on, but that say will only be relative to our voting rights, which seriously favour the Franco-German alliance.

We are also told that we can propose new legislation, so long as we get 1million signatures. What they don't tell us is that they are under no obligation to give it any serious consideration. Which is probably a good thing, because we will have every crackpot and looney around the place trying to gather a million signatures.

Basically, what the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty will do, is create a little bubble in the EU, where the politicians can decide on matters that concern us, without actually having to put things to referendum. We saw that this is the case in every country except for Ireland. The thing about Lisbon, is that it removes the need for referenda in this country by giving the politicians the power to amend existing treaties. Then, only on matters that affect our constitution will there be the need for a referendum, and the amending of a treaty that we have already accepted will arguably not require one.

This really is an ingenious piece of legislation, that actually does flip the EU on its head. Instead of the peolpe having the final say, the politicians do. We are the only barrier to this, and Lisbon removes that. Just imagine, all the future legislation of the EU will be ratified in the same manner it was in other countries, by not giving the people a say. The Dutch and the French proved a fly in the ointment until they changed the wording of the EU Constitution and therby removed the need for a referendum, but keeping pretty much the same functionality.


Just think, we will have an increase in the militarisation of Europe, being driven by the arms industry, and the politicians in the EU will, after Lisbon, have the power to react to a "threat of war" - remember the reason the US and britain invaded Iraq? It was a threat of terrorism, but was actually called a war. So here we have all these new shiny weapons, and he arms industry quickly reaching saturation point in the market. How does one create new demand for weapons? By having to replace ones that have been used.

It isn't necessary to have a referendum on every issue...thats not necessary in democracy.

Sam Vimes

gambiaman wrote: »

it's what your post deserved and required.
Nothing more nothing less.

You are peddling lies.

It's his opinion. How can an opinion be a lie?

You do know that there are reasons to vote yes for this treaty besides doing FF a favour right?