Which way will you vote (if at all)

grames_bond wrote: »

and do you want to know why the main Irish partied are campaigning for a yes vote? if the treaty is ratified then these parties (which ever one is in power) will have the same salary, the same benifits, the same holidays, the same everything except LESS accountability! they can pass the buck on any area in which the people are not happy with and blame the EU!

This is utter nonsense. If you had any slight realistic insight into the world of politics,paricularly Irish politics you'd realise that politicians are the most power-hungry people you will ever meet. Handing over power to someone else is not something done lightly and regarding occasions when they do hand over powers to the EU it is usually for the betterment of the Irish people.
This treaty is in fact providing more accountablility for national parliaments who now have a fews weeks window to debate and analyse new EU proposals.

grames_bond wrote: »

and gimme a break on the "ireland still has a veto on taxation" bull, anyone heard of political lobbying? other countries could easily use their superior voting powers on other areas to vote against ireland and force us to back down on our taxation stance...one taoiseach, one MEP will buckle sooner or later, its inevitable!

I don't understand what your point is about the MEP here?

Three other countires in the EU have lower corporation tax rates than Ireland. 9 have less than 20% rates. Tax related issues,under lisbon, remain a matter of complete unanimity for each member state and to suggest otherwise is a lie. Sarkozy can have his little tantrum but in reality there is nothing he can do about it.

grames_bond wrote: »

If europe aint broke, don't try fix it!! vote no

Europe is on the path to "breaking" so to speak. Even as it is the pressures of 17 commissioners and such a big parliament are limiting its abilities.

This treaty has no unique selling point,nor is it interesting.All it does is help to make Europe operate more efficiently. I don't see any reason nor can the No-side give any factual reasons as to why anyone should reject Lisbon!

Irish and Proud wrote: »

More accountability mate!

For example, the European Council meets behind closed doors - do you honestly trust the PMs in there without the public being allowed see how decisions are reached?

Do you honestly trust the EU when the MEPs' expenses haven't been logged for the last 12 years?

What's this I hear about our government requesting that the French withhold a white paper relating to military matters until after the Referendum?

IMO, these are just a couple of items which give the impression that there is significant secrecy in EU circles!

Regards!

How much reading have you done on the Lisbon Treaty? One of the changes that will be introduced should Lisbon pass is opening the Council up to the public. So its already there.

My understanding is that the MEPs expenses have been logged but that there are questions outstanding over the format in which they were. The money has been accounted for though.

As for this military white paper you've heard of, well I've heard of sexual experiments on alien abductees but then I don't believe everything that I hear. Either way it doesn't sound like anything to do with Lisbon. From a military/defense standpoint all that the Treaty itself says is that we need to improve our military ability, may be asked to assist a member state under attack and the overall EU defense policy must be in line with the UN. Any white paper will have to be reviewed and voted on post Lisbon.

Hermy wrote: »

I understand that not all countries traditionally have referenda but perhaps in keeping with the supposed democratic ideals of the E.U. an exception should have been made in this case. There is a lot of debate on the whole issue of voting rights and here we [the Irish] are, deciding on the Treaty for the rest of Europe.

Hmm. Who would make the exception? The EU has no power to dictate how countries ratify treaties. It's up to each individual country - and if the citizens of Italy (for example) think that treaties should not be ratified by referendum - and as it happens, referendums cannot be used in Italy to ratify treaties, it's specifically stated in their constitution - then who has the right to insist that they "make an exception"?

I've pointed out before that the EU-wide pro-referendum protests over the Bank Holiday weekend garnered a grand total of maybe a hundred protesters across the whole EU. There isn't a great groundswell in Europe to have referendums. They're part of our tradition, as they're part of a few other countries' traditions (much as petitions aren't part of ours), and we're relatively used to the lying and screaming they entail. Other countries may well see them as undignified and irrational ways of ratifying international treaties.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hermy wrote: »

Khannie,
It is my humble opinion that this referendum is not being put to the people, especially the French and Dutch, because the governments believe it would be rejected.

You could be right, but judging by their reasons for voting no the first time they reject the treaty for reasons which had nothing to do with the treaty. If you can't trust the populace to vote on the issues at hand why is it a good idea that they vote at all? There are only a handful of people protesting about not getting the vote this time round because it would seem that the majority of people just don't care enough to get involved and to learn the issues.

ruskin wrote: »

To all of those unsure about Lisbon and those intending to vote Yes, I say only one thing:

"If you vote yes on Thursday, there is no going back, no chance to rewind. Consider what you are signing Ireland into."

Actually there is the ultimate rewind, a skip back to before we joined the union. The Lisbon treaty allows for the first time member states to leave the union if they so wish.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

...like the European Council of PMs who meet behind closed doors? :rolleyes:

I refer to my above post which states that the Lisbon Treaty will make Council sittings public. So :rolleyes: yourself.

grames_bond wrote: »

not much room for improvement without destroying what took years to build!

Wow thats fuzzy logic. The article does not say it functions as efficiently as it possibly could. It says it functions more efficiently than it did in the past. To make it simple, it could have been operating at 50% effieciency for most of its existance and recently gone up to 60% efficiency. Therefore it would be more efficient than ever but there's still another 40% left to squeeze out of it.

molloyjh wrote: »

Wow thats fuzzy logic. The article does not say it functions as efficiently as it possibly could. It says it functions more efficiently than it did in the past. To make it simple, it could have been operating at 50% effieciency for most of its existance and recently gone up to 60% efficiency. Therefore it would be more efficient than ever but there's still another 40% left to squeeze out of it.

Actually the original report makes the rather important point that most of the legislation the EU was producing during the period under consideration was boilerplate legislation for the new accession countries - essentially, modified copies of existing EU Directives and Regulations to bring the new members up to speed with everyone else.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Leeby wrote: »

Now I'm being told that since the EU's plan is to compete with America economically, then if we vote yes, these big companies definately won't be setting up in Ireland anymore.

Unless we plan to match the US industry for industry, I don't see why multinationals would be put off setting up in Ireland as a gateway to Europe. I definitely think that any perception (true or not) that our relationship with Europe has degenerated is going to have a negative impact on the likelihood that a multinational will set up here. Given that our economy is slowing now, reduced ties with the EU, real or perceived, are going to be problematic for us.

Leeby wrote: »

I've a question.

Part of my reason for wanting to vote yes, is that I always thought that the likes of America saw us as a gateway to Europe, and if we vote no I think we'll have an unsteady relationship with Europe and so the likes of these big companies won't set up in Ireland anymore. (I don't think I explained that very well but I'm hoping you get the gist).

Now I'm being told that since the EU's plan is to compete with America economically, then if we vote yes, these big companies definately won't be setting up in Ireland anymore.

So now I'm confused, a little help anyone?

It can be a little confusing alright. When people talk about competition in the commercial world it does not exactly equate to competition between two bodies whereby all the constituent part of one are in direct competition with the other. In other words you can't think of the US and the EU as two big separate entities, and all US companies on one side and all EU companies on the other. Individual businesses from either block act in their individual interest not in the interest of their home country. So when the EU is in competition with the US it is in fact competing for the businesses of the US to move services and production to the EU. So by the EU being more competitive with the US, the EU and Ireland will attract more US businesses away from the US to Europe.

Hermy wrote: »

Khannie,
It is my humble opinion that this referendum is not being put to the people, especially the French and Dutch, because the governments believe it would be rejected.

Isn't it also possible that it is not being put to the people because they are not required to put it to them? That given a choice between an expensive referendum and an inexpensive decision by democratically-elected politicians, the obvious choice would be to save the taxpayer's money?