Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why No ??

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    BJC
    Registered Users Posts: 731 ✭✭✭BJC


    BMH wrote: »
    So...?

    So, the ratified treaty will give the EU council the power to propose changes to certain parts of the governing treaties. There may not be an Irish commissioner on the council at the time to veto it. The problem there is that not in all cases will the changes go to referendum and in some cases QMV will apply, thus leaving us powerless to veto or vote against it.


  • Options
    #63
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    BMH wrote: »
    Generalisations, while sometimes accurate, don't work on a case-by-case basis. I'm saying that a large proportion of those that vote for Sinn Féin hold very different ideals than those contained in the party's manifesto.

    I disagree. Sinn Féin aims to aid those in need and those in need for for SF. I think the voter-base is quite fitting.


  • Options
    #64
    BJC
    Registered Users Posts: 731 ✭✭✭BJC


    sink wrote: »
    Ireland actually has 3.75% voting weight for this requirement, the same as France, Germany and the UK. We in fact end up with pretty much the same voting power as we had before (2%).

    "The Lisbon Treaty would implement a new system of voting by the European Council which is primarily based on population size. This means that Ireland’s voting weight would be reduced from 2% at present to 0.8% if the Treaty was implemented, while Germany’s would increase from 8% to 17%."

    - Libertas.


  • Options
    #65
    BMH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭BMH


    BJC wrote: »
    So, the ratified treaty will give the EU council the power to propose changes to certain parts of the governing treaties. There may not be an Irish commissioner on the council at the time to veto it. The problem there is that not in all cases will the changes go to referendum and in some cases QMV will apply, thus leaving us powerless to veto or vote against it.
    EU Commissioners are each assigned an area, much like a cabinet ministry. ANd like our cabinet, the portfolios are often of disproportionate importance, like Culture commissioner v the Competition commissioner. They don't represent national interests in any shape or form, but cater to the interests to the EU as a whole.


  • Options
    #66
    shamrock2004
    Closed Accounts Posts: 603 ✭✭✭shamrock2004


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Come on folks, the EU has been good for Ireland
    And we have been good for the EU.
    Think of the ramifications of the ratification of the Nice treaty
    and how we consequently opened our gates to citizens of the new
    EU countries.
    I personally feel that we are loosing our identity to a degree and that
    should the EU tighten it's proverbial grip on us more, we will
    slowly but very surely become a province.
    1916 is never far from the forefront of my mind.

    This is my own opinion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    BMH wrote: »
    Once again, an issue decided by the governments of the member states. Had the EU intervened and forced the elected representatives to hold referenda, people would accuse it of encroaching on national sovereignty.

    I can't see how allowing a country to have a referendum on something like this could be construed as, "encroaching on national sovereignty." The EU did intervene, when it took a proposed EU constitution that was rejected and threw it back at the same countries that rejected it in the form of a treaty! If that isn't encroaching on national sovereignty, well I don't know what is!
    BMH wrote: »
    The No campaign have been spreading far more lies and exaggerations that the yes campaign. I don't understand your accusations of pushiness either. Do you expect them not to campaign? The government set up unbiased resources to explain the treaty. It took a side on it and has argued its case to the electorate, and those against have done the same.

    Well for a start, Biffo threatened to throw out of the party any FF members who were not behind the treaty. What's that about??? There is an obvious sense of panic and alarm about this whole thing that doesn't sit well with me, should it not be passed. You cannot say to a country that there is only one way to vote, that's just wrong, you wouldn't see it in fu*kin' North Korea! We are being basically told that we cannot vote no on this, and that is not acceptable to me, we can vote whatever way we want depending on the merits or otherwise on what is put before us. When I get the impression that our government can digest this much, then I'll listen to the pro's and con's and vote on the merits or otherwise of what I see before me, but not until then.


  • Options
    #68
    BJC
    Registered Users Posts: 731 ✭✭✭BJC


    BMH wrote: »
    EU Commissioners are each assigned an area, much like a cabinet ministry. ANd like our cabinet, the portfolios are often of disproportionate importance, like Culture commissioner v the Competition commissioner. They don't represent national interests in any shape or form, but cater to the interests to the EU as a whole.

    I don't understand how that relates to the point I just made? Please Clarify.


  • Options
    #69
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    BJC wrote: »
    "The Lisbon Treaty would implement a new system of voting by the European Council which is primarily based on population size. This means that Ireland’s voting weight would be reduced from 2% at present to 0.8% if the Treaty was implemented, while Germany’s would increase from 8% to 17%."

    - Libertas.

    More like Lieberats. They are not taking into account one of the two criteria for qualified majority. Even if 65% of the population is for it, if 55% of the states do not make up that 65% it will not pass. I'm sorry but they are simply wrong.


  • Options
    #70
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Agreed with Darragh. The Government has been very forceful of a yes vote.


  • Options
    #71
    BMH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭BMH


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    I can't see how allowing a country to have a referendum on something like this could be construed as, "encroaching on national sovereignty." The EU did intervene, when it took a proposed EU constitution that was rejected and threw it back at the same countries that rejected it in the form of a treaty! If that isn't encroaching on national sovereignty, well I don't know what is!
    You seem to be blaming the EU for not forcing sovereign nations to hold a referendum. The governments that the people elected negotiated the EU constitution. The governments that the people elected negotiated the Lisbon Treaty. These decisions are not taken by some invisible string-pullers.
    Well for a start, Biffo threatened to throw out of the party any FF members who were not behind the treaty. What's that about???
    This is the practice of practically every political party. Ever hear of the party whip?
    There is an obvious sense of panic and alarm about this whole thing that doesn't sit well with me, should it not be passed. You cannot say to a country that there is only one way to vote, that's just wrong, you wouldn't see it in fu*kin' North Korea!
    They set up an unbiased commission to present the facts, and then presented their own view.
    We are being basically told that we cannot vote no on this, and that is not acceptable to me, we can vote whatever way we want depending on the merits or otherwise on what is put before us. When I get the impression that our government can digest this much, then I'll listen to the pro's and con's and vote on the merits or otherwise of what I see before me, but not until then.
    If you're waiting for the government to propose legislation and then not back it, you'll , well, you'll be waiting quite a while =/


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    BMH wrote: »
    The No campaign have been spreading far more lies and exaggerations that the yes campaign. I don't understand your accusations of pushiness either. Do you expect them not to campaign? The government set up unbiased resources to explain the treaty. It took a side on it and has argued its case to the electorate, and those against have done the same.

    Well I'm not allied to either of the persuaders in the media in relation to this topic, I'm voting no for my own reasons, but what lies or exagerations are you referring to above???


  • Options
    #73
    BJC
    Registered Users Posts: 731 ✭✭✭BJC


    sink wrote: »
    More like Lieberats. They are not taking into account one of the two criteria for qualified majority. Even if 65% of the population is for it, if 55% of the states do not make up that 65% it will not pass. I'm sorry but they are simply wrong.

    Germany's allotment of 17% can be accounted for using both of the QMV's criteria.


  • Options
    #74
    BMH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭BMH


    BJC wrote: »
    I don't understand how that relates to the point I just made? Please Clarify.

    You seem worried that there won't be an Irishman there. I'm saying that it doesn't matter, since commissioners don't base their decisions on their country's interests. Each commissioner should be viewed as a European.


  • Options
    #75
    BMH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭BMH


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    Well I'm not allied to either of the persuaders in the media in relation to this topic, I'm voting no for my own reasons, but what lies or exagerations are you referring to above???

    Introduction of abortion, euthanasia, prostitution, hard drugs, forced education of three year-olds, nuclear power; being forced into a military alliance, losing our sovereignty, losing our corporate tax rate...


  • Options
    #76
    BJC
    Registered Users Posts: 731 ✭✭✭BJC


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Agreed with Darragh. The Government has been very forceful of a yes vote.

    I agree aswell. It has become a cat fight between the yes and no sides but this is definitley not a reason to vote no in any referendum. What if the referendum was on something as controversial as abortion or the death penalty, would you vote in oppostion to the government just to "stick it to the man", or would carefully consider all the facts and make an informed decision?


  • Options
    #77
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    No, and I'm not voting because of that. I have my own reasons.


  • Options
    #78
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    The reason I'm voting no is because we are not being asked to vote but we are being told how to vote and are being told that there is no option but to vote yes.
    I see so you vote the opposite way to the way some party tells you to vote every time do you?
    Have you any idea how ridiculous that is?
    It's like our government are terrified of the possibility of this being rejected here and this has set off alarm bells in my head.
    Of course they are.I wouldnt say terrified though,I'd say worried.
    Also, we are being told we will lose "goodwill" and "credibility" if we vote no, well I don't like the fact that we appear to be relying on favours from the EU, almost as if we "owe" them one now, because we got this that or the other over the last 15 odd years.
    Thats a bit obtuse if you ask me.
    This is the substantive issue I am voting on in this referendum, not what is in or not in the Lisbon Treaty. I'm voting no because I feel that this is being completely pushed upon us,
    You are not a stepford wife..How can something be pushed on you if you have the option to vote no?
    I've no problem with what is in the treaty but I'm 200% sure I'm voting against it, because we are being no less than bullied into voting for this treaty. Telling me I cannot vote no, that I'd be stupid/mad/insane/selfish if I voted no, (even though I would actually have been open to voting yes for this treaty!), is an unprecedented affront to my constitutional right to vote whatever way I like in a referendum withour fear or favour. I'm telling the government at the ballot box that I'll vote whatever way I fu*king like and they will have to accept that.
    Thats selfishness and quite Assinine logic towards voting.
    The reality has been for some time now that the EU see referendums as a formality that must be smashed through one way or another. The fact is that if there was any way that this could be pushed on us without a referendum, it would be done.
    Frankly thats bull.All the governments that negotiated this treaty are directly elected.
    The substantive issue being that it appears to me to be increasingly obvious that the EU is dictating to us how we should vote, that is in the countries where they are allowed vote on this, us seemingly being the only country that has a say on this treaty, which is actually unbelievable.
    Every election candidate in any democracy that ever was,also tells you how to vote...ie for them.
    So, I'm voting no not on the contents of the Lisbon Treaty, but I'm voting no for the way in which this has been approached, I'm voting no because I don't agree that 400 Million EU citizens should be excluded from this decision to accept the Lisbon Treaty and the only country that is having a vote, i.e ourselves, are being told that there is only really one option on this. I wouldn't be surprised when I get to the ballot box, if there is only one box on the ballot paper! There is no point in having a referendum when there is only one result that will be accepted, so I'm saying no and leaving it to the government to go back to the drawing board and take some fu*king humility lessons before coming back to us again on this one.
    Again thats assinine and selfish and completely ignores the fact that the directly elected representatives of all the EU countries negotiated this treaty.
    But hey you're entitled to vote stupidly.


  • Options
    #79
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    BMH wrote: »
    You seem to be blaming the EU for not forcing sovereign nations to hold a referendum. The governments that the people elected negotiated the EU constitution. The governments that the people elected negotiated the Lisbon Treaty. These decisions are not taken by some invisible string-pullers.This is the practice of practically every political party. Ever hear of the party whip? They set up an unbiased commission to present the facts, and then presented their own view.If you're waiting for the government to propose legislation and then not back it, you'll , well, you'll be waiting quite a while =/

    I just think people/citizens need to be directly involved in this from a decision point of view. There has been an obvious side stepping of the electorate in relation to this treaty. If there was a referendum held in France & Holland for an EU constitution (which we all know was rejected), and this new treaty is apparently 80& plus of the old rejected proposed constitution, then it stands to reason that there ought to be a referendum for the treaty in the countries that rejected the constitution!?!?! The fact that there isn't is an affront to the electorate in those countries, we are looking at the bare ugly face of an EU that is putting up a two fingered fu*k you to the electorate of these countries and appears to be standing beside us with a wrecking ball in one hand and a lump hammer in the other should we dare to vote no. Get up the fu*kin yard I say, and take your spot cream with ya!


  • Options
    #80
    BJC
    Registered Users Posts: 731 ✭✭✭BJC


    BMH wrote: »
    You seem worried that there won't be an Irishman there. I'm saying that it doesn't matter, since commissioners don't base their decisions on their country's interests. Each commissioner should be viewed as a European.

    Agreed, but I am sayin aside from their assigned areas, the EU commissionars will have the chance to veto any proposed changes to parts of the governing treaties. In that case, the Irish commissioner (providing we have one at the time) will obviously be more inclined to vote for whatever is most productive for Ireland.


  • Options
    #81
    BJC
    Registered Users Posts: 731 ✭✭✭BJC


    dlofnep wrote: »
    No, and I'm not voting because of that. I have my own reasons.

    Apologies dlofnep, that was more directed at Darragh26. I am a no vote also, what are your reasons?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    BMH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭BMH


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    I just think people/citizens need to be directly involved in this from a decision point of view. There has been an obvious side stepping of the electorate in relation to this treaty. If there was a referendum held in France & Holland for an EU constitution (which we all know was rejected), and this new treaty is apparently 80& plus of the old rejected proposed constitution, then it stands to reason that there ought to be a referendum for the treaty in the countries that rejected the constitution!?!?! The fact that there isn't is an affront to the electorate in those countries, we are looking at the bare ugly face of an EU that is putting up a two fingered fu*k you to the electorate of these countries and appears to be standing beside us with a wrecking ball in one hand and a lump hammer in the other should we dare to vote no. Get up the fu*kin yard I say, and take your spot cream with ya!
    And again, not the EU's fault, and no justification for a No vote. You can criticise the decisions made by France and Holland, but if you want to have your say in their affairs, you'll have to move there and become a citizen.


  • Options
    #83
    BMH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭BMH


    BJC wrote: »
    In that case, the Irish commissioner (providing we have one at the time) will obviously be more inclined to vote for whatever is most productive for Ireland.
    This really isn't the case.


  • Options
    #84
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I see so you vote the opposite way to the way some party tells you to vote every time do you?
    Have you any idea how ridiculous that is?Of course they are.I wouldnt say terrified though,I'd say worried. Thats a bit obtuse if you ask me.

    There is clearly a difference in tone and argument in relation to this treaty. Also, this is on the back of the government having rejected the first answer that the people gave on the last occasion. I'm not automatically voting no because the government is telling me to vote yes. It's more because the government are clearly telling me that I CANNOT vote no, that NO is not an option. I feel sick at the leader of our country coming on the airwaves yesterday DEMANDING that we vote yes on this, it's like if he is saying, "look, yiz have to say yes on this 'cos these cu*nts will shoot the messenger"!!! It's pathethic and disgusting looking at the leader of our country being literally terrified and almost pissing himself at the thoughts of having to go back to Brussels with a no decision on this.


  • Options
    #85
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    BMH wrote: »
    And again, not the EU's fault, and no justification for a No vote. You can criticise the decisions made by France and Holland, but if you want to have your say in their affairs, you'll have to move there and become a citizen.

    Well if it wasn't the EU who engineered this, then who is it? Did these countries just say, "look, just sort it out amongst yourselves, we couldn't be arsed with another referendum!"??? I don't want to live in a democracy where decisions are made at the top and we are just asked to rubberstamp them, and that is clearly what is happening here. I'm all for a full and frank debate and a government putting its weight behind one side of the argument if it see's fit, we're all grown ups and can make oup our own minds. But what is happening on this occasion, is something different. We are being told that we CANNOT vote no.


  • Options
    #86
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    There is clearly a difference in tone and argument in relation to this treaty. Also, this is on the back of the government having rejected the first answer that the people gave on the last occasion. I'm not automatically voting no because the government is telling me to vote yes. It's more because the government are clearly telling me that I CANNOT vote no, that NO is not an option. I feel sick at the leader of our country coming on the airwaves yesterday DEMANDING that we vote yes on this, it's like if he is saying, "look, yiz have to say yes on this 'cos these cu*nts will shoot the messenger"!!! It's pathethic and disgusting looking at the leader of our country being literally terrified and almost pissing himself at the thoughts of having to go back to Brussels with a no decision on this.

    Do you realise that Bertie was the President of the European council when the majority of the treat was negotiated. So is Cowen scared of Bertie tellin him off or something to that effect?


  • Options
    #87
    BJC
    Registered Users Posts: 731 ✭✭✭BJC


    BMH wrote: »
    This really isn't the case.

    What evidence is there to suggest that the Irish commissionar will not vote biased towards ireland. If He/She was not biased towards Ireland then what is the point of having a commissioner from Ireland in the first place?


  • Options
    #88
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    Well if it wasn't the EU who engineered this, then who is it? Did these countries just say, "look, just sort it out amongst yourselves, we couldn't be arsed with another referendum!"??? I don't want to live in a democracy where decisions are made at the top and we are just asked to rubberstamp them, and that is clearly what is happening here. I'm all for a full and frank debate and a government putting its weight behind one side of the argument if it see's fit, we're all grown ups and can make oup our own minds. But what is happening on this occasion, is something different. We are being told that we CANNOT vote no.

    The most powerful figures in the EU are the members of the European Council. They also happen to be the heads of government of the 27 states. So are you saying they put pressure on themselves?


  • Options
    #89
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    BJC wrote: »
    What evidence is there to suggest that the Irish commissionar will not vote biased towards ireland. If He/She was not biased towards Ireland then what is the point of having a commissioner from Ireland in the first place?

    The Irish commissioner has to be approved by the European Council. The council would block a commissioner they thought would be biased towards their home country.


  • Options
    #90
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    The issue for me is how this treaty is being imposed upon us...
    Darragh29 wrote: »
    We are being told that we CANNOT vote no.
    I don't know what country you've been voting in, but every referendum I've voted on has both yes and no boxes, and I was given the option of marking whichever one I chose.

    Honestly, of all the utterly stupid reasons for voting "no", doing so because the government asked you to vote "yes" has to be about the stupidest.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    BMH wrote: »
    And again, not the EU's fault, and no justification for a No vote. You can criticise the decisions made by France and Holland, but if you want to have your say in their affairs, you'll have to move there and become a citizen.

    You see here we go again. I'm not criticising the decisions made by the French and the Dutch. My issue is clearly with the decision of the EU to push the terms of what these people rejected, back upon them in the form of a treaty. I don't want to be closer to an EU that treats citizens like this. This notion of an infallible EU that know's all and see's all, much further than we the electorate can know or see, that brings us where they are going and when they have brought us there, ask's us how we like the scenery, but tell's us we can only give one answer and it better be in full communion with their thoughts. Will ya get up the yard!


Advertisement