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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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?

oscarBravo wrote: »

More accurately, the pace increased in the 1980s and has been steady ever since.

There was a lot of stagnation in the 70s and 80s due to serious economic problems. E.g. monetary union was supposed to happen many years earlier than it did.

ninja900 wrote: »

More accurately, the pace increased in the 1980s and has been steady ever since.

There was a lot of stagnation in the 70s and 80s due to serious economic problems. E.g. monetary union was supposed to happen many years earlier than it did.

Well, also there was de Gaulle:

Seeing France as temporarily weak, he wanted no rival for leadership in Europe. Hence it was mainly Realpolitik which motivated him to veto (in 1963 and again in 1967) the UK's application to join the EEC. Additional factors were the UK's ties with the Commonwealth, its special relationship with the USA and its predilection for free trade, which threatened the Common Agricultural Policy and ran counter to French mercantilism. In retrospect, de Gaulle's judgment that the UK and the Community would not be ideally suited to each other is hard to fault.

De Gaulle's independence made him a difficult colleague in European counsels, especially since his reign coincided with the Commission presidency of Walter Hallstein, that keen advocate of full European integration. The two men first clashed in the early 1960s over the Fouchet Plan, in which de Gaulle tried to amend the Treaty of Rome, reduce the Commission's powers and put authority in the hands of national parliamentarians. Rebuffed, he sharpened his proposals, aiming to weaken the Council of Ministers and end the supremacy of Community law. At the same time he suggested revising Europe's defence arrangements to sideline the UK and the USA.

The collapse of de Gaulle's initiative led to paralysis in the Community and fierce infighting. France threatened to leave the EEC, boycotted meetings and blocked the extension of qualified majority voting. The crisis was only resolved by the 1966 Luxembourg Compromise, which preserved the veto if national interests were at stake. The same year, de Gaulle pulled France out of NATO's integrated command. Not until after his retirement in 1969 did the Community start to recover its poise and invite the UK to resume its quest for membership.

cordially,
Scofflaw

craichoe wrote: »

How can an elected politician advise either way if they havent read it ?

If you think it necessary for every TD to read the treaty cover-to-cover before you can make a decision on it, then fine. Personally, I think that's just plain stupid. I don't care if Brian Cowen, Micheál Martin, John Gormley, or whoever hasn't read the treaty (although I sincerely doubt they are not intimately familiar with it), it's not going to influence my decision; I'm quite capable of making up my own mind.

craichoe wrote: »

Education and openness is what the EU is supposed to be about, that is part of the implementation process and that has not been followed.

Sorry, I still don't know what you're talking about? The treaty cannot be implemented unless it is ratified; how can the "implementation process" influence your vote?

craichoe wrote: »

Economically yes, but politically no, its a mixed bag...

In other words, they want the best of both worlds, just like everyone else. Well, what you want and what you get are two different things. If you want to be part of an international community then compromise is inevitable.

Why is it that people can accept that compromise is part-and-parcel of their everyday lives, but when presented with an international treaty negotiated between TWENTY-SEVEN individual states, that notion goes out the window; "NO. I WANT MORE!!!".

djpbarry wrote: »

If you think it necessary for every TD to read the treaty cover-to-cover before you can make a decision on it, then fine. Personally, I think that's just plain stupid. I don't care if Brian Cowen, Micheál Martin, John Gormley, or whoever hasn't read the treaty (although I sincerely doubt they are not intimately familiar with it), it's not going to influence my decision; I'm quite capable of making up my own mind.

Yikes! The YES camp advocate listening to our elected representatives on this issue yet you claim it's irrelevant whether or not they've actually read it. I firmly believe every single TD should have read and understood it (having it explained to them where necessary) or they should keep their mouths shut and their posters off the lamp posts (on both sides of the argument).

[aside]

I've been asked a few times since posting that "I want no more than free trade and freedom of movement from the EU" as to whether or not I'd like a common energy and environmental policies and the answer is yes....but we don't need the EU for those things. The Kyoto protocol has far more non-EU signatories than EU ones. Now if the argument is that the EU makes it easy to force countries to do things which are good for the environment then that's a different argument altogether. I still don't agree that the EU should be able to dictate these things. I believe the individual states should be able to come to agreements and if a rogue state decides it's going to pollute the rest of us by allowing heavy industry to belch out noxious fumes then the rest of the countries in the community could simply stop dealing with that rogue state.

A lot of the argument I heard Michael Martin give last night revolved around us having natural small allies in the likes of Estonia/Lithuania etc. Now, remember, Russia is on an imperialist trip of its own these days and if they shut off the gas to these little states unless they rejoin the motherland, they could rejoin the motherland and leave us back in cold war days. Don't say it'll never happen, Putin is an autocrat in all but name and the russians seem to like it. They yearn for their country to be strong again. We could sign up to a treaty which relies on allies in the east which may disappear back into the USSR. Who knows....I know I don't like the risk.

murphaph wrote: »

I've been asked a few times since posting that "I want no more than free trade and freedom of movement from the EU" as to whether or not I'd like a common energy and environmental policies and the answer is yes....but we don't need the EU for those things. The Kyoto protocol has far more non-EU signatories than EU ones. Now if the argument is that the EU makes it easy to force countries to do things which are good for the environment then that's a different argument altogether. I still don't agree that the EU should be able to dictate these things. I believe the individual states should be able to come to agreements and if a rogue state decides it's going to pollute the rest of us by allowing heavy industry to belch out noxious fumes then the rest of the countries in the community could simply stop dealing with that rogue state.

A lot of the argument I heard Michael Martin give last night revolved around us having natural small allies in the likes of Estonia/Lithuania etc. Now, remember, Russia is on an imperialist trip of its own these days and if they shut off the gas to these little states unless they rejoin the motherland, they could rejoin the motherland and leave us back in cold war days. Don't say it'll never happen, Putin is an autocrat in all but name and the russians seem to like it. They yearn for their country to be strong again. We could sign up to a treaty which relies on allies in the east which may disappear back into the USSR. Who knows....I know I don't like the risk.

You are not really looking at the big picture imo. You have to do an external environmental analysis of the opportunities and threats facing Ireland and Europe in the foreseeable future. Then you have to build a strategy that will effectively and efficiently deal with the issues.

You held Kyoto up as a great example of how a treaty between states can work. But you have failed to realise that Kyoto has been a complete failure. If we analyse the micro environment of each signatory you will soon see why. Take Ireland for example, we have had a booming economy and our rate of change has been so fast that the government has been lagging behind in terms of infrastructure improvement (public transport, cleaner power plants) and environmental legislation (specifically lack there of). Now our economy was booming and it was mainly down to foreign direct investment and trade with other countries, we were proving benefits to our investors and trading partners, maximising their profits. We are miles behind on our Kyoto targets, you suggested that other countries should just stop dealing with us, but they have become reliant on us in other ways and to stop trading with us would hurt them more than if we carry on polluting. If we forced ourselves to put the environment before economic growth the investment and trade would dry up due to competition from other counties with less stringent environmental regulation. So what do other countries do? Of course they choose the lesser of two evils and let us carry on polluting and Kyoto is a complete failure. Ireland is a small example but almost the same dynamics are happening with China right now.

Now if you imagine a hypothetical environmental organisation that encompassed the globe, one which had the mandate to force countries to change their practices and did not worry about having consequences as it could enforce change on all participants equally, levelling the playing field so to speak. That is why sometimes a big supranational organisation that can dictate to it's members is far more effective at dealing with the problem than a series of bi-lateral/multi-lateral agreements.

Now there are other areas you mentioned, that this logic can be applied to. Energy security being the easiest. If we had one energy policy for the whole EU, the Russians could not apply pressure to the small Baltic states because it would be dealing with the largest economic block in the world with half a billion people. So the hypothetical situation you envisaged would not exist. Also Ireland's energy security would be increased, atm most our stockpiled emergency energy supplies are enough to last only 90 days. We import most of our oil and gas through Europe as we have no refineries here. If there is an energy crash (there is a good possibility there could be one this century) and each EU state manages their own energy policy it would be easy to envisage other states blocking exports of fuel in order to satisfy their domestic demands and Ireland would be left out in the cold. If there was one energy policy for all the EU each member state would have to be supplied equally. A similar thing is happening with food exports in Asia. India has limited the amount of rice and other foodstuffs it exports in order to satisfy domestic demand. Neighbouring countries which rely on trade with India are suffering, specifically Burma and the crises is exacerbated by the recent typhoon.

To sum up, powerful supranational organisation are good for implementing difficult policies and for guaranteeing security. We do loose a little bit of self-determination but we have far more to gain by being a member of such organisations.

murphaph wrote: »

The YES camp advocate listening to our elected representatives on this issue yet you claim it's irrelevant whether or not they've actually read it.

I've heard this claim quite a bit from the 'No' camp, but I've yet to hear a single TD say anything along the lines of "trust me and vote yes to Lisbon". Any TD I have heard speak on the subject has advised people to consult the Referendum Commission and make up their own minds. But again, it's irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

murphaph wrote: »

I firmly believe every single TD should have read and understood it (having it explained to them where necessary)...

Cover-to-cover? Why? What purpose would it serve? How would that make you feel better?

murphaph wrote: »

...they should keep their mouths shut and their posters off the lamp posts (on both sides of the argument).

Anytime anyone is asked to vote on anything, there's going to be a campaign of some sort; it's part of life. But if someone is stupid enough to base their vote on something they saw on a placard, then they shouldn't be voting at all. So again, this is irrelevant.

murphaph wrote: »

I believe the individual states should be able to come to agreements and if a rogue state decides it's going to pollute the rest of us by allowing heavy industry to belch out noxious fumes then the rest of the countries in the community could simply stop dealing with that rogue state.

The lads above have already explained why this is just not practical.

murphaph wrote: »

A lot of the argument I heard Michael Martin give last night revolved around us having natural small allies in the likes of Estonia/Lithuania etc. Now, remember, Russia is on an imperialist trip of its own these days and if they shut off the gas to these little states unless they rejoin the motherland, they could rejoin the motherland and leave us back in cold war days.

murphaph wrote: »

...I don't believe for one second that the easternmost states will let the gas flow west through their land from Russia while their own coutries freeze. If things get this desperate it'll be every man for himself regardless of what common energy policy is in force.

So basically you think that the former Soviet states will suit themselves if the going gets tough, irrespective of whether they are in the EU or not?

johnnyq wrote: »

If they're not informed how can we trust anything they say?

The fact that a TD has not read the treaty in its entirety does not mean that they are uninformed; that's a big leap to be taking.

johnnyq wrote: »

We're supposed to look to them for advice...

Really?!? That's news to me! If anything, I would say it's the other way around!

djpbarry wrote: »

I would say they most likely are, yes.
Personally, I would not turn to a TD for advice, no. Anyone who elects to vote based on what their local TD says should not be voting at all, in my opinion.

The point is, whether a certain TD has read the treaty or not, or whether a certain TD fully understands the treaty or not, is completely irrelevant, in my opinion. One should not be basing one's vote on the opinions of TD's or MEP's.

You are in direct opposition then with many of the YES camp on here who often refer to the fact that all the main parties support a YES vote as a "good thing" and that only "loony leftists" advocate a NO vote is a "bad thing".

Also, it is well known that the placards on the lamp standards do indeed sway voters, especially undecided ones in the last few days-so with that said....should election posters be banned as an unreliable method of getting the right result?