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

Irish Friends vote 'No' for me (please!)

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    craichoe wrote: »
    They are, i live in the Netherlands, there's protests outside our Irish embassies. The Dutch are really p*ssed that their right to vote has been removed on this issue.

    What a load of tripe. The right to vote on the issue wasn't removed, it was never there. Part of the Dutch Governments mandate is to negotiate and ratify (or not) treaties on behalf of their people. The Dutch didn't have their right to vote taken away. That makes it sound like it was all done illegally.


  • Options
    #93
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    craichoe wrote: »
    Thats what the officers in Concentration camps during WWII said to people about escaping.

    If you make a statement you should give a reason, not just .. "Bad things will happen if you don't vote yes"

    Plenty in the No campaign are happy to make baseless statements also. While I agree it was foolish for them to make the statements they did given the Irish temprament, I still don't think we should vote down the Treaty because of it. Vote for the merits of the Treaty itself and ignore the backgroud noise.


  • Options
    #94
    craichoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭craichoe


    What a load of tripe. The right to vote on the issue wasn't removed, it was never there. Part of the Dutch Governments mandate is to negotiate and ratify (or not) treaties on behalf of their people. The Dutch didn't have their right to vote taken away. That makes it sound like it was all done illegally.[/QUOTE]

    Still no vote here. Last time the vote was no, this time the vote will be yes, however its not up to the people.

    Does that sound right to you?


  • Options
    #95
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    craichoe wrote: »
    Thats what the officers in Concentration camps during WWII said to people about escaping.
    They said nothing of the sort. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #96
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    craichoe wrote: »
    Thats what the officers in Concentration camps during WWII said to people about escaping.

    If you make a statement you should give a reason, not just .. "Bad things will happen if you don't vote yes"

    Another ludicrous extreme. Sigh.
    Have a look at some of the other threads on this question. Nobody said it will bad if you don't, but there are unknown consequences of a No vote. I'd suggest there's a degree of personal projection on your part.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    craichoe wrote: »
    What a load of tripe. The right to vote on the issue wasn't removed, it was never there. Part of the Dutch Governments mandate is to negotiate and ratify (or not) treaties on behalf of their people. The Dutch didn't have their right to vote taken away. That makes it sound like it was all done illegally.

    Still no vote here. Last time the vote was no, this time the vote will be yes, however its not up to the people.

    Does that sound right to you?[/quote]

    Its a regular occurance in politics that an option is presented, and then rejected, only to be modified slightly and re-submitted for reconsideration. While I can understand the frustration I really think that there are so many other policy areas that affect our lives on a far more regular basis that we dont get to have a say in, like budgets. Its a bit wierd, I find, to get so carried away with the right to vote on this item, but yet not have the same feeling towards other more relevant things to our day to day lives.


  • Options
    #98
    craichoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭craichoe


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Another ludicrous extreme. Sigh.
    Have a look at some of the other threads on this question. Nobody said it will bad if you don't, but there are unknown consequences of a No vote. I'd suggest there's a degree of personal projection on your part.

    How is it a ludicrous extreme, thats what the french foreign minister said.

    Well .. i guess by that logic, we didnt need it before and i can't see that anythings changed so we can vote no safe in the knowledge that there will be no negative impact.

    All i've heard is that it will be bad, with no reasoning as to why.


  • Options
    #99
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Do you believe by voting "no" you'll create goodwill in Brussells?


  • Options
    #100
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    craichoe wrote: »
    How is it a ludicrous extreme, thats what the french foreign minister said.

    Well .. i guess by that logic, we didnt need it before and i can't see that anythings changed so we can vote no safe in the knowledge that there will be no negative impact.

    All i've heard is that it will be bad, with no reasoning as to why.

    Regardless of what happens if there is a No vote, if there is a Yes then we should see a more efficient EU, and given the benefits we've already gained from being members this can be nothing but good news. I really like the idea of the Citizens Initiative too. Another positive to my mind is the single foreign affairs post, which will give us a stronger global voice. And I think we do tend to be a bit more level headed than the US so for me there is great potential there.

    I don't like the "If you don't vote Yes" approach, any more than I like a lot of the No approach. Scaremongering is unnessecary and cheap. We don't know what will happen if we vote No. I'm not sure there is a better deal to be had seeing as we're talking about negotiating with so many other nations. So I have no idea where it will go after a No vote or what the fallout (if any) there will be. I would much rather see a positive campaign outlining why we should vote Yes rather than why we shouldn't vote Noi.


  • Options
    #101
    craichoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭craichoe


    Zulu wrote: »
    Do you believe by voting "no" you'll create goodwill in Brussells?

    Goodwill in Brussels ?

    What the people vote is up to them and brussels will have to respect that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    craichoe wrote: »
    How is it a ludicrous extreme, thats what the french foreign minister said.
    No, that's not what he said at all.
    craichoe wrote: »
    ...we can vote no safe in the knowledge that there will be no negative impact.
    Bit naive, don't you think? Nobody can say with any certainty what will happen if a 'No' vote is returned.
    craichoe wrote: »
    All i've heard is that it will be bad, with no reasoning as to why.
    I think it's reasonable to assume that it's not going to be good. Why? Because there is no plan B. In fact, Lisbon IS Plan B.


  • Options
    #103
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    craichoe wrote: »
    Goodwill in Brussels ?

    What the people vote is up to them and brussels will have to respect that.
    You didn't answer my question.

    Brussels will have to respect it, but they won't have to like it.

    Raging against the machine at every opportunity is futile; the timing of picking a fight is important. This isn't that time.


  • Options
    #104
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    craichoe wrote:
    They are, i live in the Netherlands, there's protests outside our Irish embassies. The Dutch are really p*ssed that their right to vote has been removed on this issue.

    I'm interested. I have seen a picture of a "protest outside our Irish embassies" from the Bank Holiday weekend - it's seven (7) people. Do you perhaps have a different picture?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #105
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Zulu wrote: »
    Do you believe by voting "no" you'll create goodwill in Brussells?
    Who cares? There will be no bad will from our fellow european citizens (the people who matter to me) so if the political elite across the EU (the people who don't matter to me) have a problem with it then tough. Was ther e bad will from Brussles towards the countries to the north and south when they voted NO to almost the exact same thing? Did the french or dutch worry about what a load of MEPs in Belgium thought of them? Nope. We are an equal member of this union and have contributed to as well as benefitted from it! We need to stop being afraid of offending Europe as though it were some benevolent uncle. The EU didn't admit us way back when because we had a booming economy-we slipped in because they wanted access to our fish stocks and they got it. Some economists believe we have always been a net (no pun intended) contributor to the EU due to our fish stocks being available to the rest of the member states.

    Personally I believe the EU has gone too far. That may sound cliched or like I'm a paid up member of the conservatives, or UKIP! I'm not. I'm pro-european at heart but I do believe that the political elite are railroading our individual member states towards a USE to compete directly with the americans and to be honest, I don't want that. The americans are massively in debt with their military ventures and I'd rather the EU spent all that money on renewable technology to ween us of the arab oil rather than militarising ourselves so we can also "liberate" places. The glorious United States is home to some of the world's poorest people with 1 in 7 having no medical insurance (read: up sh!t creek without a paddle should they become ill). There are many parts of the US which are worse than Iraq-I've seen plenty of them in Washington and Michigan, worse than anything you'd find in our corner of the world. The US is not the example to follow.

    I want the EU to mean free trade and free movement of people. I don't want any more from it than that thanks. I question the rapid admission of so many p!ss poor eastern states and I believe there's a military aspect to that deep down-to push deep into former Warsaw-pact territory. Please tell me what Bulgaria has to offer if you think I'm being paranoid?

    I want the EU expansion to STOP. I want us to all look at this thing again. I want the PEOPLE OF EUROPE to engage in a debate about where we are going together. I believe we must vote NO to Lisbon and put the brakes on. It is all so hurried and rushed. In years gone by there'd be a treaty every few years. Slow steady change. It all seems to have accelerated of late. I don't trust the political elite. If a NO vote is as catastrophic as (some in) the YES camp are letting on then something is BADLY WRONG.


  • Options
    #106
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    There will be no bad will from our fellow european citizens (the people who matter to me) so if the political elite across the EU (the people who don't matter to me) have a problem with it then tough.

    there will be from poland though right?

    If I understand correctly some of the issues in the treaty were requests from poland, most notable the delaying of things that would be implemented next year such as the downsizing of the number of commissioners etc. Poland requested they be delayed til 2014, saying no accelerates it to 2009 essentially giving poland the cold shoulder.

    Could be misinterputing though. I just wanted to throw that out there.


  • Options
    #107
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    murphaph wrote: »
    I believe we must vote NO to Lisbon and put the brakes on. It is all so hurried and rushed. In years gone by there'd be a treaty every few years. Slow steady change. It all seems to have accelerated of late.
    Hmm.
    • 1987: the SEA
    • 1993: Maastricht
    • 1999: Amsterdam
    • 2003: Nice
    • 2009: possibly Lisbon
    A new treaty every 5-6 years is hurried & rushed?


  • Options
    #108
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Hmm.
    • 1987: the SEA
    • 1993: Maastricht
    • 1999: Amsterdam
    • 2003: Nice
    • 2009: possibly Lisbon
    A new treaty every 5-6 years is hurried & rushed?
    We joined in the early 70's. Maybe a list from then would be a fairer rebuke to my assertion?

    Hypothetically, how many of these treaties would need repealing if we were to strip the EU back to the EEC days (free trade) but with free movement of people? That's all I want from the EU. That's all a LOT of people want.


  • Options
    #109
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    Hypothetically, how many of these treaties would need repealing if we were to strip the EU back to the EEC days (free trade) but with free movement of people?

    very few seeing as alot of the need for the treaties is just to update the written structure of the prior treaty to take in account for changes within europe.
    That's all I want from the EU. That's all a LOT of people want.

    Yes and thats what we get!

    But you still need a lot of treaties and constant beuracracy to make sure we keep those things, we are dealing with 27 nations here today, its a legal and international relations minefield.


  • Options
    #110
    ninty9er
    Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    craichoe wrote: »
    Ye are getting way too into the whole thing.
    Bottom line, there is indeed scaremongering going on here.

    On BOTH sides
    • A no vote benefits nobody

    • A yes vote benefits no individual county

    • A YES vote benefits the group of countries that comprises the EU


  • Options
    #111
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Please don't write in big letters like that. Thanks.
    Yes and thats [free trade and freedom of movement] what we get!

    But you still need a lot of treaties and constant beuracracy to make sure we keep those things, we are dealing with 27 nations here today, its a legal and international relations minefield.
    Please! The EU has developed and Lisbon further develops (or facilitates the further development of) political union. We don't even need the Euro for free trade.....but we have it!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    murphaph wrote: »
    We joined in the early 70's. Maybe a list from then would be a fairer rebuke to my assertion?
    Maybe, but the pace of change has been more or less steady for some twenty years now. Harking back before then is taking nostalgia to extremes.
    Hypothetically, how many of these treaties would need repealing if we were to strip the EU back to the EEC days (free trade) but with free movement of people? That's all I want from the EU. That's all a LOT of people want.
    And yet, every treaty to date has been ratified. Seems to me that more people want progress than want to live in the past.


  • Options
    #113
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    murphaph wrote: »
    We joined in the early 70's. Maybe a list from then would be a fairer rebuke to my assertion?

    Hypothetically, how many of these treaties would need repealing if we were to strip the EU back to the EEC days (free trade) but with free movement of people? That's all I want from the EU. That's all a LOT of people want.

    Those are all the treaties since we joined - the previous treaty was the Merger Treaty in 1965 which joined the then three European Communities into one.

    To roll back to a purely economic EEC would take us back at least to the SEA - possibly a little bit further, since as we know from the Crotty case, the SEA involved some sovereignty issues. Probably we'd need to roll back to the Merger Treaty - in other words, the EC we joined in 1973.

    Freedom of movement is actually a Directive (2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004) replacing earlier Directives (64/221/EEC , 68/360/EEC , 72/194/EEC , 73/148/EEC , 75/34/EEC , 75/35/EEC , 90/364/EEC , 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC). The first number in every case is the year of the Directive.

    I appreciate that it's all a LOT of people want, but it's not what the majority want, because the majority here voted Yes to each progressive Treaty - and people still want closer union, often on things you'd be sure they didn't. Have a look at the Eurobarometer for Autumn 2007, where, for example:
    Respondents were also asked about whether they favoured the development of a common foreign policy and a common defence and security policy among member states of the EU towards other countries. Among Irish respondents, 67 per cent favoured the development of a defence and security policy and 66 per cent favoured a common foreign policy which puts them slightly lower than average European support where 76 per cent are in favour of a common defence pact and 70 per cent favour a common EU foreign policy. Only 15 and 13 per cent of Irish respondents were against such policies.

    Further examples - 87% of Irish people support the European Monetary Union and the Euro, 69% support a common EU energy policy (this being one of the areas we're "giving away" in Lisbon), 60% favour EU control on immigration...overall, I'm afraid you're actually in a minority. Most of the things that Irish people don't feel the EU should be in charge of (education, taxation, pensions) the EU isn't in charge of - funnily enough.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #114
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Thank you for your detailed response scofflaw. It clearly shows that we had a treaty in 1965 then none until 22 years later and then one approximately every 5 years since....seems like the pace of integration has indeed been upped.

    I accept that I may be in a minority (however I disagree that because all the previous treaties have been ratified that it implies that the majority of ordinary citizens want closer integration-the political elite have always deviated from what the people want to what the political elite thinks is best for us and people don't vote for their political elite based solely on the EU question, in fact the EU question is not likely to compete with domestic issues come the next general elections across Europe. People don't know or don't realise how much law actually comes ultimately from 'Europe' I suppose) but seeing as you know my basic desire is for a simpler EU, reminiscent of the early days of free trade and free movement, should I vote yes or no to Lisbon?


  • Options
    #115
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    murphaph wrote: »
    Thank you for your detailed response scofflaw. It clearly shows that we had a treaty in 1965 then none until 22 years later and then one approximately every 5 years since....seems like the pace of integration has indeed been upped.
    More accurately, the pace increased in the 1980s and has been steady ever since.
    I accept that I may be in a minority ... but seeing as you know my basic desire is for a simpler EU, reminiscent of the early days of free trade and free movement, should I vote yes or no to Lisbon?
    I think your desire is rooted in an idealistic, and hence somewhat unrealistic, perception of the good old days - nostalgia has a tendency to be rose-tinted.

    If what you long for is simple free trade and freedom of movement, you ought to realise that such concepts - while introduced in the early days of the EEC - have been refined steadily with the ongoing evolution of the Union.

    For example, Directive 2004/38/E is just one of a long string of revisions to EU law on the subject of the free movement of labour. If the EEC of old was a perfect fit, why the need to keep revising structures?

    At each point in its history, the EU has discovered that the treaties on which it was built restricted its ability to deliver on even its most basic premises, and each subsequent treaty has created mechanisms by which it can continue to do so.

    To answer your question: read up on the treaty. If you feel it is moving Europe away from its ideals of free trade and movement, vote against it. If, like me, you feel it's helping to consolidate those ideals, along with such other ideals as have accrued along the way, vote for it.


  • Options
    #116
    craichoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭craichoe


    Regardless of the content, the way its being implemented is just plain wrong.

    If it benefits everyone and its going to a public vote then it should be explained to the people in a clear and consistent manner. Issuing a 120 page document and having both side screaming bloody murder that it should or should not be implemented is just ridiculous.

    Saying people should vote yes otherwise they will suffer later is just stupid and would be considered political suicide on any other topic.

    If this was a trade agreement with China and one of their government ministers said the same, how would it be interpreted?

    Anyway, its down to the Irish people now and its tough tits for brussels if it does indeed go for a no vote.

    At this point the content of the treaty is meaningless, its how the people interpret the actions of the European representatives implementing this that matters and they have acted badly.


  • Options
    #117
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If what you long for is simple free trade and freedom of movement, you ought to realise that such concepts - while introduced in the early days of the EEC - have been refined steadily with the ongoing evolution of the Union.
    ....but along with those refinements have come directives and policies not related to free trade and free movement of people-right?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If the EEC of old was a perfect fit, why the need to keep revising structures?
    Why indeed. I believe that the European Project was always leading towards political integration. I believe that is the ultimate goal of certain people who promote the project.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    At each point in its history, the EU has discovered that the treaties on which it was built restricted its ability to deliver on even its most basic premises, and each subsequent treaty has created mechanisms by which it can continue to do so.
    I genuinely don't believe that every element of every treaty has been introduced to simply aid free trade and freedom of movement. The money in your wallet says there's more to the EU than free trade (remember we had free trade long before a single currency and the north americans have NAFTA with three currencies involved) and freedom of movement.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    To answer your question: read up on the treaty. If you feel it is moving Europe away from its ideals of free trade and movement, vote against it. If, like me, you feel it's helping to consolidate those ideals, along with such other ideals as have accrued along the way, vote for it.
    The bit in bold is precisely why I will be voting against it.I do not want the "other ideals". I just want free trade and freedom of movement and I refuse to accept that Lisbon is required for this, or indeed are many of the previous treaties mentioned upthread. We have free trade and freedom of movement. Lisbon won't deliver that as it already exists.

    Fundamentally there is a divide between those who favour further/complete political integration and those who are happy with a free trade area with freedom of movement for the citizens of the individual member states.


  • Options
    #118
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    murphaph wrote: »
    ....but along with those refinements have come directives and policies not related to free trade and free movement of people-right?


    Why indeed. I believe that the European Project was always leading towards political integration. I believe that is the ultimate goal of certain people who promote the project.


    I genuinely don't believe that every element of every treaty has been introduced to simply aid free trade and freedom of movement. The money in your wallet says there's more to the EU than free trade and freedom of movement.


    The bit in bold is precisely why I will be voting against it.I do not want the "other ideals". I just want free trade and freedom of movement and I refuse to accept that Lisbon is required for this, or indeed are many of the previous treaties mentioned upthread. We have free trade and freedom of movement. Lisbon won't deliver that as it already exists.

    Fundamentally there is a divide between those who favour further/complete political integration and those who are happy with a free trade area with freedom of movement for the citizens of the individual member states.

    So if all you want is the free trade & freedom of movement aspects, does that mean that you opposed all of the financial aid we got?


  • Options
    #119
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    murphaph wrote: »
    I'm pro-european at heart but I do believe that the political elite are railroading our individual member states towards a USE to compete directly with the americans and to be honest, I don't want that.
    I don't believe that is happening at all. If this was the ultimate goal of the EU, then surely negotiations between member states would be far more straightforward (seeing as how ultimately, they all want to unite) and the subsequent agreements reached would be rather simple. But of course that's not the case, because every treaty agreed at EU level is a COMPROMISE between 27 countries.
    murphaph wrote: »
    I want the EU to mean free trade and free movement of people. I don't want any more from it than that thanks.
    Really? You don't think, say, a common energy policy is a good idea?
    murphaph wrote: »
    I question the rapid admission of so many p!ss poor eastern states...
    :rolleyes: I'm guessing you haven't visited too many of these "piss-poor" states?
    craichoe wrote: »
    If it benefits everyone and its going to a public vote then it should be explained to the people in a clear and consistent manner.
    Is this not clear enough?
    craichoe wrote: »
    At this point the content of the treaty is meaningless...
    So you're just going to vote 'No' because you don't like the EU? How original...
    murphaph wrote: »
    ....but along with those refinements have come directives and policies not related to free trade and free movement of people-right?
    Of course, because that's what the majority of people within the EU want. Think about it; do you really think that it would be a good idea if the EU didn't pay any attention to issues such as climate change or energy security?


  • Options
    #120
    Benfatto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20 ✭Benfatto


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I don't believe that is happening at all. If this was the ultimate goal of the EU, then surely negotiations between member states would be far more straightforward (seeing as how ultimately, they all want to unite) and the subsequent agreements reached would be rather simple. But of course that's not the case, because every treaty agreed at EU level is a COMPROMISE between 27 countries.

    “Are we all clear that we want to build something that can aspire to be a world power? In other words, not just a trading bloc but a political entity. Do we realise that our nation states, taken individually, would find it far more difficult to assert their existence and their identity on the world stage.”
    - Commission President Romano Prodi, European Parliament, 13 February 2001


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Benfatto wrote: »
    “Are we all clear that we want to build something that can aspire to be a world power? In other words, not just a trading bloc but a political entity. Do we realise that our nation states, taken individually, would find it far more difficult to assert their existence and their identity on the world stage.”
    - Commission President Romano Prodi, European Parliament, 13 February 2001
    Carries equal weight as a devout advocate of EU federalism using one of Brian Cowens statements on the treaty to say the exact opposite and urging a no vote to be honest.

    Prodi is just another aspirationalist.

    Using quotes from aspirationalists instead of dealing with the text of the treaty is a famine in terms of being able to make a point on this discussion.
    It's pointless.


Advertisement