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

Benfatto wrote: »

Should Ireland vote 'No' they will probably use the same old tactic as they did with the Nice treaty: hold referendums until Brussels gets the desired answer.

Maybe they will take the effort of renaming it one more time.

This is indeed a trouble with all of the No arguments, absolute certainty that the Treaty is wrong and should be rejected but are unable to say , no more than anyone else what that will mean, because that is a complete unknown, maybe even an unknown unknown.

Benfatto wrote: »

• Ireland's low tax rates are key for making it one of the richest countries in the world. Most EU member states however have higher tax rates than Ireland. Countries like Germany and France have repeatedly stated that they oppose tax competition, opposing in effect Ireland and other members. Already the European commission is working on a unified EU corporate tax rate. Recently it has been postponed untill after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by all member states.
• The Lisbon Treaty will give the EU the possibility to extend their legislative powers into any political area. It is therefore only a matter of time before all issues will be centrally decided, including national taxation policies.

You have discredited your first point with your second. Unanimity is required to extend legislative areas. Tax is an area Ireland (and the UK) are unwilling to cede.

TAX=Nothing to do with the EU and nothing to do with the European Reform Treaty

Q.E.D

murphaph wrote: »

18 other parliaments.

The EU Constitution was ratified by popular referendum in Luxembourg, Spain and Romania.

murphaph wrote: »

I disagree with a common defence policy and believe this is aimed squarely at building the weapons industry in Europe to rival the americans.

Very unlikely that this will happen for the simple reason that people don't want it to happen.

murphaph wrote: »

I think the EU has already expanded too far and believe Lisbon will allow even further expansion more easily.

The EU is unlikely to expand beyond the former-Yugoslav states in the short to medium term; Turkey, Switzerland and Norway are the only other states to officially express an interest in acceding, but none are likely to join any time soon.

HydeRoad wrote: »

...a recent radio interview with Declan Ganley very decidedly swung me in favour of voting NO.

May I ask if you researched any of his claims in an effort to see if they could be substantiated?

HydeRoad wrote: »

Years of lies, squandered boom, and more lies, mean that I am unlikely to take seriously any statement made by a member of the main political parties, on any side of the issue.

And yet you have been convinced to vote 'No' by a man/organisation that you know virtually nothing about?

Benfatto wrote: »

The same old thing that has driven politicians since the beginning of time: greed.

That still doesn't make any sense. Even if true, why would a group of "greedy" politicians negotiate a treaty that renders them completely powerless?

Benfatto wrote: »

They believe that with the creation of an all powerful super state they can rule even more.

:rolleyes:

Conspiracy theories is this way.

Benfatto wrote: »

...this is confirmed by the EU politicians themselves...

No it isn't - you're seeing something that isn't there.

Benfatto wrote: »

overlooked that, not that it matters much.

Yes it does matter; it matters quite a bit.

Benfatto wrote: »

Look, I quote all these politicians admitting they have deceived their people...

Again, no. Care to point out the admission of deceit in this statement:
"The substance of what was agreed in 2004 has been retained. What is gone is the term ‘constitution’ ".

Benfatto wrote: »

The quotations in that article are from the rapport itself, being sceptic does not imply making things up (like the scare mongering on of the 'yes' kamp)

What scaremongering is this? Care to provide an example?

Benfatto wrote: »

It doesn't really matter who's debating you and how much proof is being thrown into your face, you have been brainwashed. That is what this source is all about. It's not your fault, schools are public for a reason, media isn't state controlled for nothing, so please don't feel offended, you just cannot help it. Let's just hope it won't go as far as soldiers' boots kicking people in camps even though it might give you a reality check.

Wow. Terrific argument. Kudos to you.

PrivateEye wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6abZudYWJ5k

^Love that video :pac:

I'm voting No myself, which leaves me a little worried- Libertas, Youth Defence and the Workers Party? not great company I admit.
Still.... I don't think party lines apply here.

Pro Europe, but I don't see Lisbon as a good deal...I imagine people like me make up the majority of the No side?

Probably not, I'm afraid. The bulk of the No side will be made up of the same 500,000 voters who vote No every time. People who actually think Lisbon is a bad deal will come in on top of that. If the No vote more than doubles from its usual level then you can claim to be in the majority.

Mind you, I have no particular idea why Lisbon isn't a good deal.

cordially,
Scofflaw

johnnyq wrote: »

Sorry but would these 'people' perhaps be the french and dutch voters whose views were ignored and cynically sidestepped to prevent them expressing their views a second time.

Yes this is certainly an institution to be a proud member of.

Are you really willing to endorse this subversion of what 'the people don't want to happen' as you say.

I would like to add that I don't agree with djbarry but I don't agree with you either. Europe already has a massive arms industry, second only to the US. Ever heard of BAE, EADS, Dassault, Fabrique Nationale, Heckler & Koch, Beretta, AgustaWestland and SAAB? European arms are sold all over the world and are growing in sales. The EDA allows EU militaries to collectively bargain with them and international manufacturers to get a better deal. It's purpose is not to increase arms manufacturing in Europe, the arms manufacturers are doing that just fine without the help of the EU.

johnnyq wrote: »

I would like to add that the member states in the EU which are in NATO are also getting on fine without dragging in the EU institutions, but wait NATO objectives are still introduced into this treaty, funny that.

Of course, just to repeat, the purpose of my post was to highlight the democratic deficit in the EU in case djpbarry hadn't noticed it.

If the EU is going to have battlegroups (requested by the UN), does it not make sense that it should have some communication with the main military block in Europe?

You've been going on about this democratic deficit, but the deficit you keep pointing out is in other countries not in the EU. I remembering voting for in the last European parliamentary election and in the last general election.

johnnyq wrote: »

France, Holland ....'other countries not in the EU'...... okay....

Pity your vote didn't stop those peoples views being ignored and railroaded through.

My vote of course didn't affect a foreign country. My vote only affect those which are meant to represent me. If they voted for a different government in both of their countries there would probably be an entirely different outcome. I don't have a vote in their countries, I wouldn't expect to and neither do you nor should you.

johnnyq wrote: »

As EU citizens you either accept that we're in it together or we're not.

Well now you do have a vote as an EU citizen regarding the EU itself. This is a chance to change the EU for the better but if we vote yes we resign the european union to the bad habits it has developed.

I'm pretty certain we've been over this point before. If the EU was to hold it's own referenda it would effectively be a state itself. It would seem
the majority in Europe don't want the EU to be a state so what your asking for is not what the majority in Europe wants. Like it or not your not going to get what you want by voting no.

johnnyq wrote: »

Okay this is my last contribution for the evening,

They are very different indeed, opposites in fact.:rolleyes:

Look this is symantics, i'm off to bed.

We need not go into semantics, though. 21 EU members are NATO members - 78% of the EU. They have agreed to certain things as NATO members - duties and obligations. They cannot sign up to another Treaty which does not accept and respect those obligations. Therefore, either:

a) EU Treaties must accept and respect those obligations

or

b) all the 21 member states must leave NATO

or

c) 21 out of the 27 EU member states must leave the EU

There's a theoretical option (d), where the NATO Treaties are amended to make NATO respect EU military obligations - making the EU treaties the primary military treaties of the NATO members instead of the NATO one. I'm pretty certain that's not actually a good idea, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

is_that_so wrote: »

you advocate no without being able to say what a No result means.

A 'No' results in the status quo. Look around you, this IS what a No result is. We are living in a 'No' EU right now, right this very second, every second!

That's what a No result means.

It is true that it does not mean the status quo will be like this forever, or even for a very long time. Change is inevitable and beneficial, thats the right change of course. Not all changes are perfect.

Voters need to decide whether this propsed change with the Lisbon Treaty is a good change for them, for Ireland and for Europe. Irish voters, as the only people being directly asked their opinion, should think of all Europeans as well as just Ireland. If it is rejected, another change will be proposed at some point in the future. Change will not come to a standstill.

A rejection of the Lisbon Treaty wont stop the 'european project', it wont make us 'bad members' of the EU, it wont make us non-Europeans, and we wont be ostracised.

Vote Wisely .....

Redspider

djpbarry wrote: »

Sorry but would these 'people' perhaps be the french and dutch voters whose views were ignored and cynically sidestepped to prevent them expressing their views a second time.

They were hardly ignored; correct me if I'm wrong, but the EU constitution was not ratified, was it?

And the Dutch and French negotiating teams got specific features negotiated into the Lisbon Treaty to address their concerns - see, for example, this article: Bringing the Treaty Back Home: The Netherlands and the Lisbon Treaty:

To that aim, the Dutch negotiating position focused specifically on the incorporation of a number of concrete checks and balances, safeguards and emergency breaks into the treaty text. Two key points included the Dutch demand for clarification of the existing division of competencies between member states and the Union, and the incorporation into the treaty text of a reference to the accession criteria for candidate member states. It was successfully made clear to the EU negotiating partners that conceding these particular demands would be instrumental for the Dutch delegation in bringing the treaty back home. The vulnerability of the Dutch position in terms of legitimacy was thereby effectively turned into a strength in the negotiations.

cordially,
Scofflaw

craichoe wrote: »

Ye are getting way too into the whole thing.

Bottom line, there is indeed scaremongering going on here.



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.

So beyond having riots what else are they supposed to do ?

The french foreign minister has threatened:
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhgbojmhauey/


And the EC president has Manuel Barosso has done the same.

Anyway at this stage, i dont really care what the Yes camp has to say, i'd vote no simply because its my right and not because someone was trying to threaten a country into getting the vote they want.

Did you notice that he said 'punish yourselves' not 'we'll punish you' two very different things. One is a warning a friend would give another if they were walking into danger the other is a threat.