Why are YOU voting no ?

democrates · 27-05-2008 6:27pm

Mad_Max wrote: »

I did say it would be silly Ive never really paid attention to this type of stuff as i've never had a chance to vote. Now im trying to play catch up on all this. I thought the central bank could still set rates even with the euro but that shows what i know

Your attention is a key point which elitists don't like - give people a say and they'll give it some thought. As your first experience in citizen democracy this is straight into the deep end, a vast international treaty of great import.

Mad_Max wrote: »

Edit: Am I right in thinking the main bone of contention with this treaty is the issue on defence/neutarility?

There are other things to consider, and taking a step back to look at the wider strategic context is the first thing rather than getting snagged in debates on the detail of the Lisbon treaty in isolation - that's a fishing net used by the Yes side, and the proof that "Read the Treaty" is not the prime task in considering a vote is that various politicians gung-ho for a yes vote haven't felt the need to read it. This doesn't amount to a case for ignorance but note the duplicity and the fact that there are wider questions to consider.

So is th EU going in the right direction? 26 out of 27 member states citizens are being excluded from having a vote on Lisbon. The trend of excluding the people is clear over the last few major changes and this alone is enough reason to vote No, otherwise we'll prove that exclusion is the way to go in future.

European nations can co-operate on lots of things without having to adopt EU political centralisation which excludes the people. It is not necessary to have any situation in which a member state must adopt EU law regardless of what a majority of the people of that nation want.

People may argue that this is already the situation and it's not down to Lisbon, true, but strategically we're the only one out of 27 that can stop the train our 'representatives' are on. The current and proposed EU hegemony suits our politicians of course, blame it on Brussels and we, the people can whistle. No, Europeans need to win back our democracy, and it's down to us to draw that line in the sand.

sink · 27-05-2008 6:29pm

johnnyq wrote: »

Sigh, so should we vote towards developing other weapons to create more advanced devastation only to have a conference in 200 years time to try and ban them?

If you believe that new weapon development will ever stop you are being incredibly naive imo. New weapons are generally better at targeting specific targets. Without new weapons being developed in the last 25 years indiscriminate carpet bombing would still happen.

johnnyq wrote: »

Wouldn't it be great if we were voting to move away from investing in weapons and actually invest towards tackling the causes of wars and devastations like poverty and injustice. Alas our EU constitution instead requires us to invest in the exaserbation of the devastition.

Unfortunately not everyone will respond to any other method but force, again believing anything else is being naive.

I don't think we are going to find agreement on this issue. I respect your opinion, but I just see things differently. At heart i'm a pacifist but reality and pragmatism keep getting in the way.

johnnyq · 27-05-2008 6:39pm

sink wrote: »

you are being incredibly naive imo......

Of course warfare is a part of life I don't deny that, but I don't want investment in warfare at the heart of the EU in it's constitution under another name. I don't want to vote in favour of a military union which places weapons ahead of real solutions.

sink wrote:

At heart i'm a pacifist but reality and pragmatism keep getting in the way.

The over a million slaughtered in Iraq were full witness to that pragmatism in action.:(

27-05-2008 6:45pm

johnnyq wrote: »

Of course warfare is a part of life I don't deny that, but I don't want investment in warfare at the heart of the EU in it's constitution under another name. I don't want to vote in favour of a military union which places weapons ahead of real solutions.

Do you actually think military spending goes down by 1 cent if Lisbon isn't ratified?
Lots of EU countries are in NATO and whats more their voters keep returning governments in favour of that.
It is quirky alright that this treaty should be making the running of the EU including it's military side for those that are that way inclined more streamlined.
It's quirky because that aspect of things has nothing to do with us.

Voting Yes or No on that issue alone is an immaterial waste of a vote.

sink · 27-05-2008 6:48pm

johnnyq wrote: »

Of course warfare is a part of life I don't deny that, but I don't want investment in warfare at the heart of the EU in it's constitution under another name. I don't want to vote in favour of a military union which places weapons ahead of real solutions.

I think we can do both, and imo the EU does place finding real solutions way ahead of military force

johnnyq wrote: »

The over a million slaughtered in Iraq were full witness to that pragmatism in action.:(

I was against the war btw, the whole thing from intelligence gathering to post-war planning was a complete mess. I support the Afgan war as I could not see any other option but to overthrow the taliban, the iraq war has damaged the prospect for peace there.

johnnyq · 27-05-2008 6:55pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you actually think military spending goes down by 1 cent if Lisbon isn't ratified?
Lots of EU countries are in NATO and whats more their voters keep returning governments in favour of that.
It is quirky alright that this treaty should be making the running of the EU including it's military side for those that are that way inclined more streamlined.
It's quirky because that aspect of things has nothing to do with us.

Voting Yes or No on that issue alone is an immaterial waste of a vote.

Hello Black Briar, I trust you will go back to page 1 of your own thread to see my other reasons for voting no.

I agree NATO has nothing to do with us at the moment. But why is NATO being mentioned in the EU Treaty? Unless of course some governments are after a merger of the two. :eek:

Ireland is part of the EU so any atrocity committed under the EU flag affects Ireland. To claim otherwise is a feeble attempt to wash blood off our hands.

Issues to do with NATO streamlining or efficiency should be done under the NATO command and not headlined in the EU 'constitution'.

BlackBriar wrote:

the EU including it's military side

You see I don't think the EU should have a military side in the first place especially with its lack of accountability to its citizens. If this was an open vote for a EU state then of course military would come under it. But the EU state was rejected by the French/Dutch. In my view, those military requirements should not be in the 95% same, rejected document which is the Lisbon Treaty.

turgon · 27-05-2008 7:12pm

I didnt want to start a new topic cause its like most others here, but the point I wanted to make was why should the EU have a common defense policy, when theres NATO. Why does every organizations created by mankind eventually have to involve war and guns.

Basically, if states want common foreign and defense policy, join NATO. No need for the EU to get involved. Or maybe theres some big point Im missing, if so tell me about it!!!

johnnyq · 27-05-2008 7:24pm

turgon wrote: »

I didnt want to start a new topic cause its like most others here, but the point I wanted to make was why should the EU have a common defense policy, when theres NATO. Why does every organizations created by mankind eventually have to involve war and guns.

Basically, if states want common foreign and defense policy, join NATO. No need for the EU to get involved. Or maybe theres some big point Im missing, if so tell me about it!!!

Unelected EU buricrats feel like they're missing out on the military action?

nesf · 27-05-2008 7:29pm

turgon wrote: »

I didnt want to start a new topic cause its like most others here, but the point I wanted to make was why should the EU have a common defense policy, when theres NATO.

Because NATO also has members who are very much not part of the EU? Also peacekeeping operations organised under an EU banner rather than a NATO banner wouldn't suffer from the problem of having the US attached and the ensuing problems with the states who need peacekeeping but who don't want to let an organisation that the US is part of do it. I don't think that NATO existing means we should completely drop the idea of an EU force of some description. If anything, it'd make me more in favour of it, i.e. a major non-US linked force.

turgon · 27-05-2008 7:34pm

So why shouldn't NATO reform, and introduce enhanced co-operation. And for peacekeeping isnt there the UN????

nesf · 27-05-2008 7:48pm

turgon wrote: »

So why shouldn't NATO reform, and introduce enhanced co-operation. And for peacekeeping isnt there the UN????

Why would the US do that or want that to happen?

Peacekeeping with the UN has problems because of bureaucracy and the difficulty in organising and agreeing on who should make up the force. It delays things and unless there is major political pressure from the big countries it can take a long time to happen. If the EU can just say, "we'll do it" it could speed things up slightly. In theory anyway.

turgon · 27-05-2008 7:58pm

Ok, fair points. However I still feel that defense should be separate from the EU. But your probably right in that the U.S. would not allow such things to happen. We all now how much they actually hate democracy, despite their patriotic rants.

nesf · 27-05-2008 8:50pm

turgon wrote: »

Ok, fair points. However I still feel that defense should be separate from the EU.

We can respectfully disagree on that one. I don't view shared defence policy as being a bad thing. If we're going to be an active part of Europe and take their money in the shape of structural funds we should also be willing to defend their soil in times of war etc.

Scofflaw · 27-05-2008 9:01pm

nesf wrote: »

We can respectfully disagree on that one. I don't view shared defence policy as being a bad thing. If we're going to be an active part of Europe and take their money in the shape of structural funds we should also be willing to defend their soil in times of war etc.

I'm also generally in favour of it. The US put together its "coalition of the willing" as a series of bilateral deals - which are how it prefers to do business. The less possible that is the better - although such a system is a long way off. Still, any multilateral control of European forces is preferable, in my view, to national control.

Arguments that armies should be kept under the "democratic control of the citizens" don't impress me much, because armies aren't. They are under the control of national governments, whose powers in respect of them pay little attention to the "democratic control of the citizens", and whose powers n time of emergency pay even less.

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon · 27-05-2008 9:04pm

But in fairness, what contribution can Ireland make to any war. Only like weather reports!!

So Scofflaw, you would be for a complete EU control of armies, with no national control. I can see why you would want it, it would lose the USA's influence. However there could be better ways to isolate the US. Maybe if someone in Europe criticized them for once, criticism they undoubtedly deserve.

sink · 27-05-2008 9:18pm

turgon wrote: »

But in fairness, what contribution can Ireland make to any war. Only like weather reports!!

So Scofflaw, you would be for a complete EU control of armies, with no national control. I can see why you would want it, it would lose the USA's influence. However there could be better ways to isolate the US. Maybe if someone in Europe criticized them for once, criticism they undoubtedly deserve.

There was massive critisism of the US troughout Europe and the world and as a result the US is weaker now than any time since the end of the vietnam war.

nesf · 27-05-2008 9:47pm

turgon wrote: »

But in fairness, what contribution can Ireland make to any war. Only like weather reports!!

We have a small but well trained infantry force along with a highly regarded special forces in the Rangers. We also have extensive experience in peacekeeping operations. We've a small military, but it's not a weak one, pound for pound.

The contribution in total numbers we could make would be small but that doesn't mean our participation wouldn't mean anything.

turgon · 27-05-2008 10:50pm

I heard a rumour that in the case of a war Ireland would run out of ammunition in half an hour. The fella who said it is actually joining the army!!

nesf · 28-05-2008 12:22am

turgon wrote: »

The fella who said it is actually joining the army!!

You'd trust the opinion of a guy who hasn't even served yet?

Scofflaw · 28-05-2008 1:43am

turgon wrote: »

But in fairness, what contribution can Ireland make to any war. Only like weather reports!!

So Scofflaw, you would be for a complete EU control of armies, with no national control. I can see why you would want it, it would lose the USA's influence. However there could be better ways to isolate the US. Maybe if someone in Europe criticized them for once, criticism they undoubtedly deserve.

I don't think I mentioned US influence? The EU already serves as a good counterweight to the US through the use of "soft force" (diplomacy, trade, and money). I wouldn't be particularly interested in building up a "Cold Peace" system for the sake of it, where the EU and the US both use military force, although I've no objection to the EU being at least known to be able to back itself.

No, I'm keen on the multilateral control for the same reasons the EU exists in the first place. Maybe I had a slightly different upbringing to others, in that I went to a semi-military public school in England. The militaristic nationalism of the old EU Powers isn't dead, so the more the militaries of the EU get entwined with each other the happier I'll be. I'm in favour of the EDA for the same reason - part of its mission is to make the EU militaries complementary, rather than each nation retaining a full-spectrum force. The more that happens, the more EU forces can only operate with each other rather than against each other. They still don't like each other, and Europe is still the part of the world that has dragged the world into its fights, and generated heaps of corpses piled many millions high.

The accession countries have only just regained their freedom, and they have swelling nationalist and ultra-nationalist movements, plus thousands of old scores to settle. Again, maybe a lot of posters don't remember a Europe dominated by the Iron Curtain and military juntas in what are now holiday destinations, but I do - it's only 30 years gone, and the end of the last ruinous bloodletting only 60 years. You'd be fools to think it's not possible simply because nearly everybody's shagged a continental European.

I know, I know, it sounds alarmist, but 50 years is not a long period in European or world history. Integration of EU military forces under multilateral control makes a lot of sense, for all the suspicion it inevitably generates. Pacifism at any price is not an acceptable stance when we know how high the butcher's bill can be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thebman · 28-05-2008 8:43am

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't think I mentioned US influence? The EU already serves as a good counterweight to the US through the use of "soft force" (diplomacy, trade, and money). I wouldn't be particularly interested in building up a "Cold Peace" system for the sake of it, where the EU and the US both use military force, although I've no objection to the EU being at least known to be able to back itself.

No, I'm keen on the multilateral control for the same reasons the EU exists in the first place. Maybe I had a slightly different upbringing to others, in that I went to a semi-military public school in England. The militaristic nationalism of the old EU Powers isn't dead, so the more the militaries of the EU get entwined with each other the happier I'll be. I'm in favour of the EDA for the same reason - part of its mission is to make the EU militaries complementary, rather than each nation retaining a full-spectrum force. The more that happens, the more EU forces can only operate with each other rather than against each other. They still don't like each other, and Europe is still the part of the world that has dragged the world into its fights, and generated heaps of corpses piled many millions high.

The accession countries have only just regained their freedom, and they have swelling nationalist and ultra-nationalist movements, plus thousands of old scores to settle. Again, maybe a lot of posters don't remember a Europe dominated by the Iron Curtain and military juntas in what are now holiday destinations, but I do - it's only 30 years gone, and the end of the last ruinous bloodletting only 60 years. You'd be fools to think it's not possible simply because nearly everybody's shagged a continental European.

I know, I know, it sounds alarmist, but 50 years is not a long period in European or world history. Integration of EU military forces under multilateral control makes a lot of sense, for all the suspicion it inevitably generates. Pacifism at any price is not an acceptable stance when we know how high the butcher's bill can be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You know I never really thought about it like that TBH probably because the Iron Curtain etc... was more something in a history book for me than something in the headlines when I was growing up (well it was in the headlines but the Simpsons took precedence at the time over 6.1 news).

Said like that, it makes a lot of sense, my only concern would be that the EU decides it needs to bring peace and democracy to other nations or make them more like the EU because we are automatically better for some reason which some other super power countries seem too enthusiastic to do. I think the EU is less likely to go down that road because they find it hard to agree on anything without compromising several times over.

is_that_so · 28-05-2008 9:03am

So where is the war or more importantly where could it be? Much of the case here on the "militarisation of Lisbon" has been argued on the basis of possible scenarios and of course the emotive "innocents". How are the EU going to find themselves in a "war" where our boys are on the front line? The EU is not the US, and unlike the US have had two very brutal wars fought in Europe. They don't do "invade and democratise". The EU at worst is about peace-enforcement and imo we should be involved with that.

28-05-2008 9:26am

johnnyq wrote: »

Hello Black Briar, I trust you will go back to page 1 of your own thread to see my other reasons for voting no.

I agree NATO has nothing to do with us at the moment. But why is NATO being mentioned in the EU Treaty? Unless of course some governments are after a merger of the two. :eek:

With all due respect,it keeps coming up and is a misnomer.
It's been dealt with several times.Bringing it up repeatedly with alice in wonderland scenarios belies the stupidity of that reason

Ireland is part of the EU so any atrocity committed under the EU flag affects Ireland. To claim otherwise is a feeble attempt to wash blood off our hands.

Thats Bull.You may aswell start picketing outside McDonalds..Blood on the hands of it's customers given the franchise income enhances the profits of a U.S corporation.
Lets all disconnect the internet aswell..lest we allow one penny to go to the US war effort.
Lets start a party and get elected on that basis ie to remove all "blood" from our hands.
We'll start campaigning in Co Kildare (home of Intel) and send all those jobs to the dole because well that corporation is at the heart of a war mongering country so we have blood on our hands.

In other words,what you are alluding to is Alice in wonderland stuff.

Issues to do with NATO streamlining or efficiency should be done under the NATO command and not headlined in the EU 'constitution'.

Like I said it's quirky that we are voting on a document that mentions military things relevant to other EU countries and not us.
But it is irrelevant.

You see I don't think the EU should have a military side in the first place

Dealt with..
If you don't like our military-fine-take it up with the 90% of the Dáil that disagree with you.
If you dislike individual and collective EU countries military spending-tough-You've no say in that.

especially with its lack of accountability to its citizens.

Last I looked-every state in the EU put's it's MP's up to a vote from the people regularally so thats nonsense.

If this was an open vote for a EU state then of course military would come under it. But the EU state was rejected by the French/Dutch. In my view, those military requirements should not be in the 95% same, rejected document which is the Lisbon Treaty.

Again thats a fallacy.All those governments/parties have been reelected in the full knowledge that they were going to be re negotiating the constitution and can be turfed out by the same electorate if they are not happy.

democrates · 28-05-2008 1:13pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

The militaristic nationalism of the old EU Powers isn't dead, so the more the militaries of the EU get entwined with each other the happier I'll be. I'm in favour of the EDA for the same reason - part of its mission is to make the EU militaries complementary, rather than each nation retaining a full-spectrum force. The more that happens, the more EU forces can only operate with each other rather than against each other. They still don't like each other, and Europe is still the part of the world that has dragged the world into its fights, and generated heaps of corpses piled many millions high.

The accession countries have only just regained their freedom, and they have swelling nationalist and ultra-nationalist movements, plus thousands of old scores to settle. Again, maybe a lot of posters don't remember a Europe dominated by the Iron Curtain and military juntas in what are now holiday destinations, but I do - it's only 30 years gone, and the end of the last ruinous bloodletting only 60 years. You'd be fools to think it's not possible simply because nearly everybody's shagged a continental European.

I know, I know, it sounds alarmist, but 50 years is not a long period in European or world history. Integration of EU military forces under multilateral control makes a lot of sense, for all the suspicion it inevitably generates. Pacifism at any price is not an acceptable stance when we know how high the butcher's bill can be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I agree with most of that. We're in the oil endgame, there are food riots erupting in various cities across the globe, potable water versus population are on opposite trends, etc etc. The prima facia clash of civilisations is in fact the beginning of the resource wars. Not a time to be weak or poor, when elephants fight the grass gets trampled.

It is within us all in certain circumstances to commit atrocity, nimby vitriol is the tip of the iceberg, even in the Irish civil war there were women and children murdered, heaven and hell are what we make on earth. We haven't evolved much since then, since the ancient Greeks in fact.

To achieve any level of military co-operation, the Lisbon treaty is not required. Any number of nations can form such alliances and change their national laws to suit, on the civilian side of things look at the International Space Station or the current Mars expedition.

The big danger I see in all of this is an EU version of what's happened in the USA for the "war on terror". It has been used as a pretext to take away civil rights left right and centre, and the president using special wartime priviliges to institute a virtual police state. Bush has something like a 20% approval rating from the people, but thanks to the democrats on Capitol Hill being afraid to impeach, and the "wait for the next election" charade of representative democracy, they can't get rid of him, and he may well start a war with Iran before he goes. Ludicrous.

Just as it would be naive to assume Europeans would never fall back into their warlike ways, it would be naive to assume the leaders who are so hungry for power will always act in the best interests of citizens.

thebman · 28-05-2008 1:52pm

is_that_so wrote: »

So where is the war or more importantly where could it be? Much of the case here on the "militarisation of Lisbon" has been argued on the basis of possible scenarios and of course the emotive "innocents". How are the EU going to find themselves in a "war" where our boys are on the front line? The EU is not the US, and unlike the US have had two very brutal wars fought in Europe. They don't do "invade and democratise". The EU at worst is about peace-enforcement and imo we should be involved with that.

Well who knows what the future brings or what reasons politicians might use to start an unjust war.

You just don't know and can't take anything for granted. Just look at American rights. The last thing I want is something like the patriot act in America.

is_that_so · 28-05-2008 2:30pm

brim4brim wrote: »

Well who knows what the future brings or what reasons politicians might use to start an unjust war.

You just don't know and can't take anything for granted. Just look at American rights. The last thing I want is something like the patriot act in America.

Hardly a case for voting against, on the off chance that we might get it wrong. Many people voted for FF because of the perceived risk that the alternative would be bad for us. We are not America. The EU currently consists of 27 states. It will exceed 30, which strikes me as a very unwieldy number of yes votes for war to get. The treaty recognises the reality of this and the fact that it is an important economic and political bloc. It advocates defence but nowhere in the treaty does it actively advocate war.

I also think that your own answer highlights the ludicrous argument of the spectre of "militarisation" that the No side seems to want to browbeat us with.

thebman · 28-05-2008 3:23pm

is_that_so wrote: »

Hardly a case for voting against, on the off chance that we might get it wrong. Many people voted for FF because of the perceived risk that the alternative would be bad for us. We are not America. The EU currently consists of 27 states. It will exceed 30, which strikes me as a very unwieldy number of yes votes for war to get. The treaty recognises the reality of this and the fact that it is an important economic and political bloc. It advocates defence but nowhere in the treaty does it actively advocate war.

I also think that your own answer highlights the ludicrous argument of the spectre of "militarisation" that the No side seems to want to browbeat us with.

I know its unlikely and it doesn't really factor into my decision on which way to vote.

It is a concern I have about the military clauses in the treaty. I agree that with so many countries with such contrasting history and friendships in different parts of the world, it would probably be very hard for the EU to start any war especially an unjust one.

Taking rights away from citizens would be a concern but of course they can't really do this as I understand as each country would have to do this on their own and that would never work because it would be political suicide in a lot of countries.

gurramok · 28-05-2008 11:03pm

wonz wrote: »

if you are talkign about having a veto if you were in the EU once the Lisbon treaty has been ratified then NO, you would not have a veto. No one has a veto. Research qualified majority voting.

Briefly, it would take four countries to block a new law that is trying to be passed. They tell you this...but what you are not told is that it takes four countries PLUS 35% of the total european population (that is 171 million). the equation is:

LAW BLOCK = 4 countries + 35% pop (total population of 4 countries must be 171 miilion minimum)

So, if say Ireland, Sweden, Greece and Portugal wanted to block a law if wouldn't matter because their combined populations and not more than 35% of the total.

Is this true?

Can anyone clarify this 'equation'?

turgon · 28-05-2008 11:07pm

The Forum on Europe's publication "Summery Guide to the Treaty of Europe" confirms this. On page 24 it describes what is called a "Blocking Minority" of at least 4 member states, which would stop the proposal.

turgon · 28-05-2008 11:10pm

Regardless of population. Luxembourg, Ireland, Netherlands and Belgium would be able to stop it. I think. Its a bit ambiguas.

Why are YOU voting no ?

Comments