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

Referendum on Lisbon Treaty

Options
1…5681011…35

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    irish_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,271 ✭✭✭irish_bob


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    If you don't understand it, it would make a heck of a lot more sense to not vote, rather than vote Yes or No when you've no idea what either one means.

    regards,
    Scofflaw

    most sensible arguement ive heard from anyone on this issue in a long time

    as it stands at the minute i personally dont know what the treaty is about so if the vote were in 10 minutes , i would not vote at all rather than gormlessly voting NO

    it is my responsibility to find out what the lisbon treaty entails , i might add that i traditionally vote YES on treatys from europe

    the likes of sinn fein have to campaign for a NO vote in order to remain relevant and maintain there repuatation as being anti establishment
    there postion is entirely predictable


  • Options
    #213
    guinnessdrinker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,469 ✭✭✭guinnessdrinker


    I have read into the treaty a bit from the consolidated versions and still cant make my mind up yet.

    I mean you have the Green Party, who are in government and they couldn't even come to a majority vote on whether to endorse it or not so it's understandable to think the public cannot decide or even understand it.

    For example if you ask a friend that wants to excersie their right to vote but doesn't even understand what changes the treaty entails, what are they to do? You may say, if they want to vote they should find out what the treaty means but from my own experience on this one its just not as simple as that.


  • Options
    #214
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    guinnessdrinker wrote: »
    I have read into the treaty a bit from the consolidated versions and still cant make my mind up yet.

    I mean you have the Green Party, who are in government and they couldn't even come to a majority vote on whether to endorse it or not so it's understandable to think the public cannot decide or even understand it.

    For example if you ask a friend that wants to excersie their right to vote but doesn't even understand what changes the treaty entails, what are they to do? You may say, if they want to vote they should find out what the treaty means but from my own experience on this one its just not as simple as that.

    Good point. However, abstaining is also exercising your vote. If you look at Nice I and Nice II, the decisive difference was not the change in the number of No voters (which was the same both times), but in the number of abstentions:

    Nice I: 1,000,000 voted - 540,000 NO, 460,000 YES
    Nice II: 1,500,000 voted - 540,000 NO, 960,000 YES

    The No vote is rock steady, so an abstention tends to tip things their way...thus abstention in the Lisbon referendum is roughly the same as saying "I'm not sure, so perhaps not".

    Alternatively, read the No side arguments and the Yes side arguments, and try and decide which are more credible.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #215
    Tea drinker
    Registered Users Posts: 2,818 ✭✭✭Tea drinker


    irish_bob wrote: »
    most sensible arguement ive heard from anyone on this issue in a long time

    as it stands at the minute i personally dont know what the treaty is about so if the vote were in 10 minutes , i would not vote at all rather than gormlessly voting NO

    it is my responsibility to find out what the lisbon treaty entails , i might add that i traditionally vote YES on treatys from europe

    the likes of sinn fein have to campaign for a NO vote in order to remain relevant and maintain there repuatation as being anti establishment
    there postion is entirely predictable
    Is it really worse to vote no? If you abstain you have freely given up your vote. I think the Gov is doing a poor job on edumacating people, if they expect them to vote yes, they should convince, if they feel it is in Irelands interest. The options open to the goverment are to publicly support it (and educate the people why), reject it (and educate the people why) or abstain from seriously expressing an interest (not educate the people. I will vote no, if only for presentation.


  • Options
    #216
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    And in fairness, even though I will be voting NO in May, Nice II was different to Nice I in that it opted out of the common defense measures. No maybe if we vote no, the government will let us opt out of the stuff we dont want to be involved in.

    I dont want a common EU army. I would like to be neutral like switzerland.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    turgon wrote: »
    And in fairness, even though I will be voting NO in May, Nice II was different to Nice I in that it opted out of the common defense measures. No maybe if we vote no, the government will let us opt out of the stuff we dont want to be involved in.

    I dont want a common EU army. I would like to be neutral like switzerland.

    We've already opted out of the common security position - we did it in Nice. It's also written into the Treaty courtesy of the "Irish clause" that went in at Maastricht. The amendment that's being proposed has an equivalent clause again stating that we're not part of a common security setup, from what I've heard so far - plus a couple of other copper-fastening clauses. About six clauses all told, by all accounts.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #218
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    I cant claim to be a genius on the treaty, but from what I heard there was a lot of talk about EU Battlegroups. Ill wait fro the informative government leaflet to come about before saying anything. That'l probably be one sided though:(


  • Options
    #219
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    turgon wrote: »
    I cant claim to be a genius on the treaty, but from what I heard there was a lot of talk about EU Battlegroups. Ill wait fro the informative government leaflet to come about before saying anything. That'l probably be one sided though:(

    The Referendum Commission one? I think it's coming out about 2-3 weeks before the referendum itself. There's a Foreign Affairs one on www.reformtreaty.ie - although it's certainly been said that it's biased.

    Battlegroups already exist - the Irish contingent (80 soldiers, I think) is part of the Nordic Battlegroup. Essentially, the Irish go along if the mission is UN-approved, otherwise not.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #220
    Chunky Monkey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 923 ✭✭✭Chunky Monkey


    I'm inclining towards the yes direction at the moment. Went to a talk tonight hosted by the workers party. They're campaigning for the no vote. The only thing they kept saying was how 'we're going to lose our sovereignty'.

    Does anyone on the no side have anything more substantial to add to that?

    Joe Costello from the Labour party then spoke for the yes side. He spoke about how much the EU has helped Ireland- civil rights had to be sorted out on a European level because our government wasn't doing it, funding etc, how yes we won't have a representative on the commission for a third of the time but the same goes for all the other EU countries, and if we have a problem with one of their suggestions we can take it to the European court of justice, it isn't a case of everything will be decided for us and we won't be running our own country any more.

    He also mentioned something John Hume once said- The EU has been the most sucessful peace process in the world. I'm not buying into this whole Ireland will lose its neutrality and Europe will form a huge army notion. It seems to go against the whole point of the EU. I'd imagine it will be only be for peacekeeping missions if an army is formed. Apparently neutrality will remain optional and joining the army will be voluntary ie Ireland will decide whether to join it or not, the EU won't force it on us.

    Obviously I'm not going to base my opinions on one talk, I have to read up more on it before deciding one way or another.


  • Options
    #221
    Chunky Monkey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 923 ✭✭✭Chunky Monkey


    Tea drinker wrote: »
    Is it really worse to vote no? If you abstain you have freely given up your vote. I think the Gov is doing a poor job on edumacating people, if they expect them to vote yes, they should convince, if they feel it is in Irelands interest. The options open to the goverment are to publicly support it (and educate the people why), reject it (and educate the people why) or abstain from seriously expressing an interest (not educate the people. I will vote no, if only for presentation.

    There are talks going on explaining it. And they're well advertised, around Dublin at least. If you want to know about it, go online and read about it or go to the talks. If you can't be bothered then don't bother voting because you'll be skewing the results. If people aren't going to bother informing themselves and casting a meaningful vote then what's the point in having a referendum??


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    AngryHippie
    Registered Users Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    Regardless of how well informed you are, you are perfectly entitled to cast your vote and make your voice heard. If by referendum day you still have no idea which side means which, then spoil your vote, or tick both boxes. Don't just not cast a vote. That kind of crap is what holds democratic process back. Nobody will fully appreciate the implications of it until there is some media generated "crisis" months after its been ratified anyway. If its not ratified, it does put the future of the EU in jeopardy, but some would say thats not a bad thing ?

    I'm headed for yes, as I can't see what the major drawbacks would be, but international wage benchmarking is definitely going to be a bone of contention, especially if it puts the hard won deals signed by the unions in this country in danger in the face of rising inflation ! But I'm sure the ECB/Fed has an answer for that one ...


  • Options
    #223
    Chunky Monkey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 923 ✭✭✭Chunky Monkey


    Our 'hard won deals' were put in danger by our own HSE run by our own government...
    If its not ratified, it does put the future of the EU in jeopardy, but some would say thats not a bad thing ?

    Who says that and more importantly, why?


  • Options
    #224
    force eleven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,039 ✭✭✭force eleven


    Chunky Monkey wrote: »
    Our 'hard won deals' were put in danger by our own HSE run by our own government...



    Who says that and more importantly, why?

    They'll just make us vote again if we vote No anyway.... thats the essence of Democracy in Ireland these days. :mad:


  • Options
    #225
    duggie-89
    Closed Accounts Posts: 168 ✭✭duggie-89


    force eleven wrote: »
    They'll just make us vote again if we vote No anyway.... thats the essence of Democracy in Ireland these days. :mad:

    well then we should keep voting no until they come up with a treaty that looks after the small guy. also if there is any threat to workers rights in it my first reaction is a striaght no to it.


  • Options
    #226
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    duggie-89 wrote: »
    They'll just make us vote again if we vote No anyway.... thats the essence of Democracy in Ireland these days.
    well then we should keep voting no until they come up with a treaty that looks after the small guy. also if there is any threat to workers rights in it my first reaction is a striaght no to it.

    Our government might offer us a new amendment, but there wouldn't be a new treaty. There wasn't at Nice either - what changed was the amendment, not the Treaty.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #227
    force eleven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,039 ✭✭✭force eleven


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Our government might offer us a new amendment, but there wouldn't be a new treaty. There wasn't at Nice either - what changed was the amendment, not the Treaty.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Just as a footnote, was listening some weeks ago to some guy from one of these many institutes, centre for European excellence or something, his point was that since only 35% of the electorate voted in the Nice treaty mark 1, then it was right to allow the people vote again, since most didn't. Presumably if we had voted Yes first time round with 35% turnout, we'd have been ask to vote again also. This whole if you vote No, you're anti this and that, is a load of baloney.:mad:


  • Options
    #228
    AngryHippie
    Registered Users Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    Chunky Monkey wrote: »
    Our 'hard won deals' were put in danger by our own HSE run by our own government...

    A shining example of a bloated bureaucracy swallowing resources!!!



    http://www.euro-sceptic.org/links08.asp?RNG=76&PRT=1

    They might be a bit radical and very skeptical, but they do raise some interesting arguments. Especially considering the other major Federal Union in the world, Not exactly an ideal model to follow are they ???


  • Options
    #229
    WanderingJew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18 ✭WanderingJew


    Chunky Monkey wrote: »


    Who says that and more importantly, why?

    I say so, because I like to have at least some freedom in my life. You see, I am not one of the collective, I am not "all in this together".

    EU? Anybody pro EU would need to get an education (not indoctrination), before doing so argument is pointless.


  • Options
    #230
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    force eleven wrote: »
    Just as a footnote, was listening some weeks ago to some guy from one of these many institutes, centre for European excellence or something, his point was that since only 35% of the electorate voted in the Nice treaty mark 1, then it was right to allow the people vote again, since most didn't. Presumably if we had voted Yes first time round with 35% turnout, we'd have been ask to vote again also.

    Well, it would have to have been on an amendment to de-ratify Nice, of course. However, I think it was pretty well known at the time that the whole thing had gone of at half-cock, and that the government had made an absolute hames of it, so there'd be another vote.

    Personally, I was 100% certain there'd be a second vote - I voted No to the first Nice amendment, because the government had basically said "it's a very complicated treaty, so just vote Yes" - indeed, I seem to remember that the booklet more or less said exactly that.
    force eleven wrote: »
    This whole if you vote No, you're anti this and that, is a load of baloney.:mad:

    Sometimes. A lot of those who advocate a No vote are anti this and that (usually the EU), but some of them aren't.
    WanderingJew wrote:
    I say so, because I like to have at least some freedom in my life. You see, I am not one of the collective, I am not "all in this together".

    EU? Anybody pro EU would need to get an education (not indoctrination), before doing so argument is pointless.

    I love that kind of statement, because it's very obvious that you'd dismiss as indoctrination any 'education' about the EU that didn't lead to people agreeing with you.

    amused,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #231
    WanderingJew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18 ✭WanderingJew


    Scofflaw wrote: »

    I love that kind of statement, because it's very obvious that you'd dismiss as indoctrination any 'education' about the EU that didn't lead to people agreeing with you.

    amused,
    Scofflaw

    Exactly, because I know exactly where the EU is going. Look into the history of the Soviet Union if you want an example of the "collective".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    ga2re2t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 134 ✭✭ga2re2t


    My two cents:

    The Lisbon Treaty, in my opinion, is way too complicated to be voted on by the general public. It's a massive document that is unreadable because it makes continuous references to the other treaties. You'd need at least a decent crash course in law and about 6 months of in-depth study of the treaty itself just to have a clue what it's all about! This is probably, I feel, the best reason for voting no, simply because most people who vote yes can never fully understand exactly what they're voting for. It's not that they're stupid, they're just not qualified.

    But, and this is a big but, I would still advocate a yes vote and I would plead with everyone to vote yes. I'm hypocritical you may say? Maybe, but only because I have a reason to be.

    This is my understanding:
    You see, this treaty is the only way that the EU can move forward. It will modify the voting system so that non-major decisions can be taken more quickly and (believe it or not!) more democratically. This may reduce Ireland's say on some non-major issues, such as water pollution directives, building standards directives and the like. Ireland will keep its important say (and veto power) on the more important issues such as foreign EU policy and taxation. Ireland has opted out of the change from unanimous decisions to qualified majority voting in the sector of police and judicial affairs.
    The EU needs to move forward on this for a very selfish, somewhat abstract, yet very important reason: clout on the international scale.
    In a world grouped into continents and superpowers, no one EU country can face up to the likes of China, India or the US. Globalisation is something that cannot and will not be stopped, no matter how many anti-McDonald's marches people hold! The only way to deal with it is to go along with it and hopefully control the process, like the expression "if you can't beat them, join them". The EU is that control mechanism. Its job is to get European countries to work together in as cohesive and as peaceful a manner as possible so that each individual country gets its say in EU policy, and therefore World policy. Very few of the larger EU countries even think that they can go it alone in the world today. Ireland would have no hope, especially when US investment finally reaches its end. War was rampant in Europe before the forming of the EEC, it's not a coincidence that it's only in localised pockets now.

    There are, of course, other benefits to this treaty such as a reduced number of commissioners and a clause on withdrawal from the EU. The latter should be enough for those in the no campaign who are sick of Europe and think it's time to leave. Disadvantages probably include the fact that the EU will have extra political scapegoats in the form of a foreign representative and an EU council president (2.5 year term). But that really shouldn't stop you from voting yes.

    Voting no will get Ireland nowhere. The other 26 countries will almost certainly ratify it and I doubt they'll leave it there just because of Ireland's no vote. They'll motor on with the provisions of the treaty and Ireland will look on from the sidelines, twiddling its thumbs with its concerns falling on deaf ears. Am I scaremongering? I suppose so, but it's my last resort as I finish this post!


  • Options
    #233
    trellheim
    Registered Users Posts: 5,887 ✭✭✭trellheim


    post hoc ergo propter hoc ... I think not.

    If it was a simple redo of QMV and commissioner allocations do you think it would go to a referendum ? Of course not !

    It would be sorted by Dail Ratification. It's not.


  • Options
    #234
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,793 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    It has to go to a referendum. The Supreme Court ruled that we can't ratify EU treaties without one.


  • Options
    #235
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    trellheim wrote: »
    post hoc ergo propter hoc ... I think not.

    If it was a simple redo of QMV and commissioner allocations do you think it would go to a referendum ? Of course not !

    It would be sorted by Dail Ratification. It's not.

    "It is understood that the Attorney General has advised the new coalition that because the new treaty amends existing treaties that Ireland endorsed in previous referenda, the government is constitutionally bound to hold a new poll on the deal reached this weekend."

    As far as I know, there was quite some doubt over whether a referendum was required for this one, but the AG's advice leaned on the side of a referendum ratification. The case was not clear-cut.

    Perhaps you could indicate which bits of the Treaty involve a new transfer of sovereignty?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #236
    guinnessdrinker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,469 ✭✭✭guinnessdrinker


    Across the water Labour have defeated the Conservative proposal to hold a referendum on the treaty. Link

    The House of Commons seems very divided on the issue of the treaty unlike the Dail. I know the UK is traditionally viewed as a Euro skeptic member state but at least there is some debate on the issue over there.


  • Options
    #237
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    guinnessdrinker wrote: »
    Across the water Labour have defeated the Conservative proposal to hold a referendum on the treaty. Link

    The House of Commons seems very divided on the issue of the treaty unlike the Dail. I know the UK is traditionally viewed as a Euro skeptic member state but at least there is some debate on the issue over there.

    Hmm. Given the utterly pointless oppositional argument that usually passes for 'debate' amongst our political classes, I'm almost glad. There's plenty of debate outside the Dáil, though.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #238
    guinnessdrinker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,469 ✭✭✭guinnessdrinker


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Hmm. Given the utterly pointless oppositional argument that usually passes for 'debate' amongst our political classes, I'm almost glad. There's plenty of debate outside the Dáil, though.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    True enough, I'm not sure some of the dail debates should even be given the name "debate". On another note, does anyone know what stance each of the independant T.D's and the Green T.D's are taking (I think the Green party itself is 60/40 in favour) with regards the referendum


  • Options
    #239
    Belfast
    Registered Users Posts: 1,355 ✭✭✭Belfast


    Voting NO sounds like a good plan.


  • Options
    #240
    AngryHippie
    Registered Users Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Hmm. Given the utterly pointless oppositional argument that usually passes for 'debate' amongst our political classes, I'm almost glad. There's plenty of debate outside the Dáil, though.

    I've watched Oireachtas report and Dail beo and a few of the other presentations of parliamentary proceedings, and aside from a few of the Senate meetings that were shown, the discourse on this siteis usually:) far more perceptive and relevant to the issues being discussed. Its a credit to those who contribute to this site and the mods who keep it a nut free zone. Its what has made this my favorite and most visited site in the past few months, You'll always learn something new. Cheers all:D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    P_ONeil
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14 ✭P_ONeil


    Official 'No To Lisbon' Website...

    http://www.no2lisbon.ie/

    A guide to why the Lisbon Treaty is bad for Ireland...

    [FONT=Sans Serif, Verdana, Helvetica][/FONT][FONT=Sans Serif, Verdana, Helvetica]http://www.claresinnfein.com/files/lisbonalternativeguide1.pdf[/FONT]

    There are many reasons that the guide doesn't list that this treaty should be opposed.

    First off, it directly conflicts with the Irish Constitution. The first paragraph in Article 1 states:

    The Irish nation hereby affirms its inalienable, indefeasible, and sovereign right to choose its own form of Government, to determine its relations with other nations, and to develop its life, political, economic and cultural, in accordance with its own genius and traditions.

    If this treaty is passed, then we lose our right to determine relations with other nations as well as lose the right to develop economic and cultural ties with other nations.

    Under this treaty, which is the EU Constitution all over again - this time the name changed as to keep EU members from holding a referendum. It was agreed, quite publically by many EU leaders, that the only way to get these new 'laws' passed was to do it without the input of the people it will govern. That right there should be a clear warning sign that it is not in the best interests of the people to support this treaty.

    Some of the major issues that are top of the list of why this should not be passed:

    1. It requires Ireland increase defense spending exponentially in a way Ireland has never before. It forces Ireland to create a larger standing army and pay for large chunks of guns and bombs which will be dropped on whoever the EU doesn't like at the time. We no longer will be neutral - our country will be tied to the decision made by the UK and other countries which do not share in our values or beliefs. The funding for this will come directly from social programmes currently in Ireland. We lose the right NOT to go to war, AND will sacrifice services in our social/health budget to pay for this as well.

    2. Economic and trade related matters will be handled by the EU - NOT Ireland. We have no say in tariffs or other trade mechanisms. The EU will govern this, and our own legislature will be secondary to the laws enacted by the EU.

    3. It gives 105 new powers to the EU to govern areas that are currently not there. That means in 105 new areas (from climate change, to our roads, to discrimination, and more) we lose the right to establish our own laws in this areas. All current law will be nullified if it conflicts with EU law. In 60 of these new areas we lose the right to protest changes even if they direclty effect our nation in an adverse way.

    4. Under this treaty we lose half of our current representative in the EU plus we lose our Commisioner. This means 2 out of every 3 years we will be without someone in the EU who will be able to work on our behalf. If another EU nation wants to pass legislation that would damage Ireland, they only need wait a year or two then can pass said legislation and there is no recourse for Ireland to contest the legislation.

    5. Under this treaty if a million signatures are gathered on a petition, the EU must *consider* the proposal. They by no means have to even have a vote on it - they merely have to say they considered it, then can easily toss it out - with no recourse for real action.

    6. This treaty lays the foundation of a new EU police force, which will have powers in every EU nation. Irish citizens will be subject to arrest and prosecution based on laws outside of Ireland.

    7. All Irish law will become secondary to EU law. The High Court is no longer the highest court in the land - all of our laws will be subject to review by EU courts and challenges denied at the High Court can be taken to the EU court which will be able to overturn the High Courts decisions.

    8. Nuclear power will be forced on us. The treaty calls for forced investment and development in nuclear power. This means funds for other green alternatives (such as wind and solar) will be channeled into setting up nuclear power plants in Ireland.

    9. This treaty sets up an EU superstate - a corporate entity like America which has no oversight or accountability. The leaders will be directly shielded from prosecution. The leaders do not have to act on behalf of the member states, and the member states and their peoples have little to no power in shaping or changing courses of action taken by the leaders of the new EU superstate.

    10. This treaty removes the ability for member states to hold referendums on ALL future treaties. IF THIS TREATY IS PASSED, we lose the right to call ANY referendums on ANY future treaties. This means any new treaties, which may not be in the interests of Ireland, will be rubber stamped and passed without ANY input from the Irish people.



    I could go on for hours about other minor things that this treaty does, but these are some of the biggest.

    Anyone want some scenarios of how this will directly effect Irish communities?


Advertisement