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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Why No ??

24

Comments

  • #32
    BJC
    Registered Users Posts: 731 ✭✭✭BJC


    BMH wrote: »
    Why are you voting no? Caeuc's reasons?

    I don't like that we will only have a part time rep on the EU council, I understand that there is a need to cut through seemingly endless beuraucracy and red tape but I think the current system works well.

    I don't like the new laws of majority vote in which the big rolers of Europe could band together and over-rule smaller nations on issues decided by the majority vote (I'm well aware Tax, Defence etc. is not included here).


  • #33
    BMH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭BMH


    dlofnep wrote: »
    I think it's more to do with centralising power and other factors like increasing tax expenditure on our military and a wealth of other usings pertaining to certain communities and works than that in fairness.
    We will not be forced to increase tax expenditure on our military.

    You argue power is centralised, I'd argue that things like the Citizen's Initiative and the increased transparency counter that claim.


  • #34
    BMH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭BMH


    BJC wrote: »
    I don't like that we will only have a part time rep on the EU council, I understand that there is a need to cut through seemingly endless beuraucracy and red tape but I think the current system works well.
    It's not a representative. The EU commissioners do not represent national interests. The very idea of "our" commissioner is almost an oxymoron.
    Imagine the Taoiseach appointing a cabinet of 27 senior ministers and expecting it to work efficiently.
    I don't like the new laws of majority vote in which the big rolers of Europe could band together and over-rule smaller nations on issues decided by the majority vote (I'm well aware Tax, Defence etc. is not included here).
    From what Scofflaw pointed out, it seems that QMV is tilted more towards smaller countries banding together. Anyway, what issues are you not comfortable with being decided without a veto?


  • #35
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    sink wrote: »
    I think that's coir.

    Thanks.
    BMH wrote: »
    We will not be forced to increase tax expenditure on our military.

    You argue power is centralised, I'd argue that things like the Citizen's Initiative and the increased transparency counter that claim.

    I was under the impression that all member states had to increase their military expenditure. I understand Ireland reserves the right to not partake in military operations, but that we would be required to increase our military budget. I'd appreciate it if you could outline where it states we can opt out of this.

    Also - The C.I is not golden. No action HAS to be taken.


  • #36
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    dlofnep wrote: »
    I was under the impression that all member states had to increase their military expenditure. I understand Ireland reserves the right to not partake in military operations, but that we would be required to increase our military budget. I'd appreciate it if you could outline where it states we can opt out of this.

    We are obliged to increase our military capabilities. That is not the same thing as increasing direct spending and is something that has been ongoing since the foundation of this state.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    BJC
    Registered Users Posts: 731 ✭✭✭BJC


    BMH wrote: »
    It's not a representative. The EU commissioners do not represent national interests. The very idea of "our" commissioner is almost an oxymoron.
    Imagine the Taoiseach appointing a cabinet of 27 senior ministers and expecting it to work efficiently.

    I take your point but I stand by the fact that the current system is working quite efficiently for Ireland and I would not like to see Ireland without an EU comissioner for 5 consecutive years which will happen every ten years if the treaty is ratified.
    BMH wrote: »
    From what Scofflaw pointed out, it seems that QMV is tilted more towards smaller countries banding together. Anyway, what issues are you not comfortable with being decided without a veto?

    There are no particular issues on my agenda, just the possibility that one may arise which we may not have the power to oppose.

    If the treaty passes, 65% of the EU population can pass a decision subjected to the proposed qualified majority voting system. That, I do not agree with.


  • #38
    BMH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭BMH


    dlofnep wrote: »
    I was under the impression that all member states had to increase their military expenditure. I understand Ireland reserves the right to not partake in military operations, but that we would be required to increase our military budget. I'd appreciate it if you could outline where it states we can opt out of this.

    Also - The C.I is not golden. No action HAS to be taken.
    Maybe I'm wrong on this, but as far as I remember, the clause merely states an aspiration to become more militarily competent. It won't result in penalties. Also, our military isn't as technologically backward as many people seem to think it is.


  • #39
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    The reason I'm voting no is because we are not being asked to vote but we are being told how to vote and are being told that there is no option but to vote yes. It's like our government are terrified of the possibility of this being rejected here and this has set off alarm bells in my head. Also, we are being told we will lose "goodwill" and "credibility" if we vote no, well I don't like the fact that we appear to be relying on favours from the EU, almost as if we "owe" them one now, because we got this that or the other over the last 15 odd years.

    This is the substantive issue I am voting on in this referendum, not what is in or not in the Lisbon Treaty. I'm voting no because I feel that this is being completely pushed upon us, I've no problem with what is in the treaty but I'm 200% sure I'm voting against it, because we are being no less than bullied into voting for this treaty. Telling me I cannot vote no, that I'd be stupid/mad/insane/selfish if I voted no, (even though I would actually have been open to voting yes for this treaty!), is an unprecedented affront to my constitutional right to vote whatever way I like in a referendum withour fear or favour. I'm telling the government at the ballot box that I'll vote whatever way I fu*king like and they will have to accept that. The reality has been for some time now that the EU see referendums as a formality that must be smashed through one way or another. The fact is that if there was any way that this could be pushed on us without a referendum, it would be done.

    The substantive issue being that it appears to me to be increasingly obvious that the EU is dictating to us how we should vote, that is in the countries where they are allowed vote on this, us seemingly being the only country that has a say on this treaty, which is actually unbelievable.

    So, I'm voting no not on the contents of the Lisbon Treaty, but I'm voting no for the way in which this has been approached, I'm voting no because I don't agree that 400 Million EU citizens should be excluded from this decision to accept the Lisbon Treaty and the only country that is having a vote, i.e ourselves, are being told that there is only really one option on this. I wouldn't be surprised when I get to the ballot box, if there is only one box on the ballot paper! There is no point in having a referendum when there is only one result that will be accepted, so I'm saying no and leaving it to the government to go back to the drawing board and take some fu*king humility lessons before coming back to us again on this one.


  • #40
    BMH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭BMH


    BJC wrote: »
    I take your point but I stand by the fact that the current system is working quite efficiently for Ireland and I would not like to see Ireland without an EU comissioner for 5 consecutive years which will happen every ten years if the treaty is ratified.
    I stand by the fact that the current system is far from optimal, and that the idea that it's 'our' commissioner is ridiculous.
    There are no particular issues on my agenda, just the possibility that one may arise which we may not have the power to oppose.

    If the treaty passes, 65% of the EU population can pass a decision subjected to the proposed qualified majority voting system. That, I do not agree with.
    It's just that out of the few areas that we can't opt out of, I see very little to be worried about, especially since it isn't just 65% of the population. It's undemocratically skewed in favour of small countries like us.


  • #41
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    BJC wrote: »
    I take your point but I stand by the fact that the current system is working quite efficiently for Ireland and I would not like to see Ireland without an EU comissioner for 5 consecutive years which will happen every ten years if the treaty is ratified.

    And if it isn't, as well, in all likelihood. The reduction of the Commission is in the Nice Treaty, due to happen next year - I look forward to Libertas et al explaining that away in the event of a No vote.
    BJC wrote: »
    There are no particular issues on my agenda, just the possibility that one may arise which we may not have the power to oppose.

    If the treaty passes, 65% of the EU population can pass a decision subjected to the proposed qualified majority voting system. That, I do not agree with.

    Hmm. You're aware that this is already how the majority of EU decisions are taken? That the Lisbon Treaty moves 34 new areas to QMV (most pretty technical except energy), but otherwise just rearranges the voting weights somewhat (so that in our case we gain voting strength relative to nearly as many countries(12) as we lose (14), and by roughly similar amounts)?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    And I forgot to mention that I think we have enough armies in the world today and that's another reason why I'm voting no for this treaty. If we spent as much on trying to understand each other and tolerate each other as we spend on blowing and bombing the sh*te out of each other, we would be a lot better off in my opinion. We need less armies in the world, not more.


  • #43
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    BJC wrote: »
    I take your point but I stand by the fact that the current system is working quite efficiently for Ireland and I would not like to see Ireland without an EU comissioner for 5 consecutive years which will happen every ten years if the treaty is ratified.

    Do you realise that by voting no you are actually voting for the commission to be downsized in 2009 under the terms agreed in the Nice treaty. The Lisbon treaty delays this till 2014 and adds specifics on how many commissioners there should be and how often they are rotated.
    BJC wrote: »
    If the treaty passes, 65% of the EU population can pass a decision subjected to the proposed qualified majority voting system. That, I do not agree with.

    You are leaving out that 55% of the states must be part of that 65% majority. Ireland actually has 3.75% voting weight for this requirement, the same as France, Germany and the UK. We in fact end up with pretty much the same voting power as we had before (2%).


  • #44
    BMH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭BMH


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    The reason I'm voting no is because we are not being asked to vote but we are being told how to vote and are being told that there is no option but to vote yes. It's like our government are terrified of the possibility of this being rejected here and this has set off alarm bells in my head. Also, we are being told we will lose "goodwill" and "credibility" if we vote no, well I don't like the fact that we appear to be relying on favours from the EU, almost as if we "owe" them one now, because we got this that or the other over the last 15 odd years.

    This is the substantive issue I am voting on in this referendum, not what is in or not in the Lisbon Treaty. I'm voting no because I feel that this is being completely pushed upon us, I've no problem with what is in the treaty but I'm 200% sure I'm voting against it, because we are being no less than bullied into voting for this treaty. Telling me I cannot vote no, that I'd be stupid/mad/insane/selfish if I voted no, (even though I would actually have been open to voting yes for this treaty!), is an unprecedented affront to my constitutional right to vote whatever way I like in a referendum withour fear or favour. I'm telling the government at the ballot box that I'll vote whatever way I fu*king like and they will have to accept that. The reality has been for some time now that the EU see referendums as a formality that must be smashed through one way or another. The fact is that if there was any way that this could be pushed on us without a referendum, it would be done.

    The substantive issue being that it appears to me to be increasingly obvious that the EU is dictating to us how we should vote, that is in the countries where they are allowed vote on this, us seemingly being the only country that has a say on this treaty, which is actually unbelievable.
    Well, you know, freedom of speech and all that. Also, I would have thought you'd be more inclined to vote yes if you based your decision solely on the veracity or the arguments put forward by either side.
    So, I'm voting no not on the contents of the Lisbon Treaty, but I'm voting no for the way in which this has been approached, I'm voting no because I don't agree that 400 Million EU citizens should be excluded from this decision to accept the Lisbon Treaty and the only country that is having a vote,
    Again, take it up with the other states then.
    i.e ourselves, are being told that there is only really one option on this. I wouldn't be surprised when I get to the ballot box, if there is only one box on the ballot paper! There is no point in having a referendum when there is only one result that will be accepted, so I'm saying no and leaving it to the government to go back to the drawing board and take some fu*king humility lessons before coming back to us again on this one.
    About half of all air time and column inches are given over to the No side, so your argument really doesn't make sense. At least you're honest about having no clue what the treaty is about though...


  • #45
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    And I forgot to mention that I think we have enough armies in the world today and that's another reason why I'm voting no for this treaty. If we spent as much on trying to understand each other and tolerate each other as we spend on blowing and bombing the sh*te out of each other, we would be a lot better off in my opinion. We need less armies in the world, not more.

    The EU is the largest aid contributor in the world and also uses soft power (diplomacy, cultural exchange, economics) far more than hard power (military). It will continue to do so but if the time comes that soft power will no longer do it needs some hard power to back itself up.


  • #46
    BMH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭BMH


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    And if it isn't, as well, in all likelihood. The reduction of the Commission is in the Nice Treaty, due to happen next year - I look forward to Libertas et al explaining that away in the event of a No vote.
    Libertas will have disappeared by then, and the only accountable party will be Sinn Féin. And, well, Sinn Féin, you know...


  • #47
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    There is no point in having a referendum when there is only one result that will be accepted, so I'm saying no and leaving it to the government to go back to the drawing board and take some fu*king humility lessons before coming back to us again on this one.

    I take your points and you have put some thought into them unlike some. That said you should take time to read up on it anyway so you know why you'll be voting no beyond the " the government".


  • #48
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    BMH wrote: »
    Libertas will have disappeared by then, and the only accountable party will be Sinn Féin. And, well, Sinn Féin, you know...

    No, I don't know - Care you tell us?


  • #49
    BMH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭BMH


    dlofnep wrote: »
    No, I don't know - Care you tell us?

    There'll already a bit of a joke. A manifesto full of Marxism and a voter base on the far-right. Claim to be pro-EU yet they campaigned against every treaty to date.


  • #50
    BJC
    Registered Users Posts: 731 ✭✭✭BJC


    BMH wrote: »
    I stand by the fact that the current system is far from optimal, and that the idea that it's 'our' commissioner is ridiculous.

    It may not be 'our' commissioner but it will be the only Irish representative on the council.
    BMH wrote: »
    It isn't just 65% of the population. It's undemocratically skewed in favour of small countries like us.

    It is just 65% of the EU population as long as that includes 15 of the 27 member states.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    The reduction of the Commission is in the Nice Treaty, due to happen next year.

    I was unaware of that.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Hmm. You're aware that this is already how the majority of EU decisions are taken?

    Yes but if the treaty is passed then it will increase the number of areas where QMV is applied and thus lessen our power of veto. It will also change the structure of the QMV system within the European council in 2014.


  • #51
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    BMH wrote: »
    Well, you know, freedom of speech and all that. Also, I would have thought you'd be more inclined to vote yes if you based your decision solely on the veracity or the arguments put forward by either side.
    Again, take it up with the other states then.

    Well for me, the matter of what is in this treaty is very much a secondary issue. I have no real problem with what is in the treaty. I have a problem with an EU that takes a proposed constitution that has been largely rejected, puts a new cover on the paperwork and imposes it on 400 odd million EU citizens, refuses them the right to vote on it and then tries to bully the one country that is having a vote on it, into how they should vote!
    BMH wrote: »
    About half of all air time and column inches are given over to the No side, so your argument really doesn't make sense. At least you're honest about having no clue what the treaty is about though...

    Well, there are only two options, yes and no, so I think it's fitting and appropriate that about half of the air time and column inches go to each side as you suggest yourself. As I said above, I have no issue understanding the treaty, I'd say I have a broad understanding of what it proposes, but I'm voting no because I see a malice and a deviousness in how this is being done, i.e. dressing a rejected constitution up as a treaty, telling a country that a thousand plagues will befall them if they don't do the right thing, also Biffo today saying that he cannot guarantee that collective bargaining rights enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty can be enjoyed by the Irish, as if I needed another reason to vote no!!! We are being asked to vote yes to this, but that small print about you being allowed to enter into collective bargaining, we can't have that over here because Microsoft, Intel at al, won't let us have them laws over here. Will ya get up the fu*kin yard I say!!!


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    BJC
    Registered Users Posts: 731 ✭✭✭BJC


    BMH wrote: »
    There'll already a bit of a joke. A manifesto full of Marxism and a voter base on the far-right. Claim to be pro-EU yet they campaigned against every treaty to date.

    +1, one of the most convincing arguments for me to vote yes is that sinn feinn is voting no.


  • #53
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    BMH wrote: »
    There'll already a bit of a joke. A manifesto full of Marxism and a voter base on the far-right. Claim to be pro-EU yet they campaigned against every treaty to date.

    That's your opinion. I'd consider the opposing parties a joke. How are their voters far-right? Voters for SF are largely liberal. They are pro-EU, but also pro-democracy.


  • #54
    BMH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭BMH


    BJC wrote: »
    It may not be 'our' commissioner but it will be the only Irish representative on the council.
    So...?
    It is just 65% of the EU population as long as that includes 15 of the 27 member states.
    So it isn't just 65% of the population. Exactly what I said
    Yes but if the treaty is passed then it will increase the number of areas where QMV is applied and thus lessen our power of veto. It will also change the structure of the QMV system within the European council in 2014.
    Again, in what area are you uncomfortable with this system?


  • #55
    BMH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭BMH


    dlofnep wrote: »
    That's your opinion. I'd consider the opposing parties a joke. How are their voters far-right? Voters for SF are largely liberal. They are pro-EU, but also pro-democracy.
    They're largely the poor and unemployed, that have nationalist leanings but identify with the Sinn Féin name. Perhaps things have changed, but I was under the impression that most left-wingers voted Labour.


  • #56
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    BJC wrote: »
    Yes but if the treaty is passed then it will increase the number of areas where QMV is applied and thus lessen our power of veto. It will also change the structure of the QMV system within the European council in 2014.

    Have you seen the areas were QMV will apply, most of them are technical and structural and affect only the EU institutions not individual states. The areas of Justice and Policing we can opt in and out of as we choose. The only serious area we loose a veto on imo is energy and I believe that if no country has a veto in this area more will get done to increase energy security and combat climate change. Ireland is unlikely to veto any proposals in this area, but countries with heavy industry to protect like Germany might.


  • #57
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    is_that_so wrote: »
    I take your points and you have put some thought into them unlike some. That said you should take time to read up on it anyway so you know why you'll be voting no beyond the " the government".

    I'm not voting no because of "the government" insofar as I'm not making a decision based on "the government" or issues relating to our governance. The issue for me is how this treaty is being imposed upon us, I think it's time to press the emergency button on this one and then the train finally comes to a firm stop, to tell those that put this referedum upon us, "now the way this works is that WE tell YOU the result of the referendum and not the other way round".


  • #58
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    BMH wrote: »
    They're largely the poor and unemployed, that have nationalist leanings but identify with the Sinn Féin name. Perhaps things have changed, but I was under the impression that most left-wingers voted Labour.

    I'm not poor, or unemployed. I'm a college student and I vote Sinn Féin. Would I fit your description?

    If anyone from a poorer background votes for Sinn Féin, it's because SF is active (and very active might I add) in the community assisting the poorer communities.


  • #59
    BMH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭BMH


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    Well for me, the matter of what is in this treaty is very much a secondary issue. I have no real problem with what is in the treaty. I have a problem with an EU that takes a proposed constitution that has been largely rejected, puts a new cover on the paperwork and imposes it on 400 odd million EU citizens, refuses them the right to vote on it and then tries to bully the one country that is having a vote on it, into how they should vote!
    Once again, an issue decided by the governments of the member states. Had the EU intervened and forced the elected representatives to hold referenda, people would accuse it of encroaching on national sovereignty.

    Well, there are only two options, yes and no, so I think it's fitting and appropriate that about half of the air time and column inches go to each side as you suggest yourself. As I said above, I have no issue understanding the treaty, I'd say I have a broad understanding of what it proposes, but I'm voting no because I see a malice and a deviousness in how this is being done, i.e. dressing a rejected constitution up as a treaty, telling a country that a thousand plauges will befall them if they don't do the right thing, also Biffo today saying that he cannot guarantee that collective bargaining rights enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty can be enjoyed by the Irish, as if I needed another reason to vote no!!! We are being asked to vote yes to this, but that small print about you being allowed to enter into collective bargaining, we can't have that over here because Microsoft, Intel at al, won't let us have them laws over here. Will ya get up the fu*kin yard I say!!!
    The No campaign have been spreading far more lies and exaggerations that the yes campaign. I don't understand your accusations of pushiness either. Do you expect them not to campaign? The government set up unbiased resources to explain the treaty. It took a side on it and has argued its case to the electorate, and those against have done the same.


  • #60
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    BMH wrote: »
    They're largely the poor and unemployed, that have nationalist leanings but identify with the Sinn Féin name. Perhaps things have changed, but I was under the impression that most left-wingers voted Labour.

    I agree left leaners vote Labour and the Green party. True socialists vote for the socialist party. Sinn Fein are left with an eclectic mix of nationalists and angry trade unionists.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    BMH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭BMH


    dlofnep wrote: »
    I'm not poor, or unemployed. I'm a college student and I vote Sinn Féin. Would I fit your description?

    If anyone from a poorer background votes for Sinn Féin, it's because SF is active (and very active might I add) in the community assisting the poorer communities.
    Generalisations, while sometimes accurate, don't work on a case-by-case basis. I'm saying that a large proportion of those that vote for Sinn Féin hold very different ideals than those contained in the party's manifesto.


Advertisement