Why No ??

Iwasfrozen · 07-06-2008 4:16pm #1

I am new to these forums, and looking around me I cannot understand
why people are so against the new Treaty.
So far Libertas and their Scaremonging have gone as far as "Vote No or join a EU super state" or "Vote Yes and we will be forced to accept Gay Marriage, Abortion, Euthanasia etc."
Bull****.
There is nothing in the Treaty that ratifies any of this and is just plain nonsense.
How desperate are Libertas to swing this to the No side ?
Another thing I hear from Libertas is that "People in other EU states are against the Treaty, and don't want it to pass, be a voice for the People of Europe, Vote NO !!"
Don't make me laugh, This treaty must be ratified by ALL states in the EU, They may not get a referendum, but their Elected Officials have helped in putting the Treaty together.
Do you honestly think these Politicians would get involved in a treaty as unpopular as Libertas says, thereby putting their jobs on the line ?
I didn't think so.
Come on folks, the EU has been good for Ireland and with your help we can make sure the EU will continue to be good for Ireland.
without the EU the Celtic Tiger would never have been born, and sure he maybe in his old years atm, but a Yes vote on the Lisbon Treaty will make sure investment continues to flow into this small insignificant island.

monkeyfudge · 07-06-2008 4:21pm

Well maybe the Yes campaign should counter with reasons to vote yes. Because all that are being thrown out are vague slogans.

sink · 07-06-2008 4:23pm

I think it has to do with people loosing faith in parliamentary democracy and in particular politicians. The tribunals have done so much damage to our faith that people are not willing to believe their own elected representatives. They are more likely to believe independent organisations like libertas and coir. It's sad to see but the few corrupt ones have blackened every politicians name.

Duiske · 07-06-2008 4:30pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Bull****.
nonsense.
Don't make me laugh.

Thats your opinion. Other people have different opinions to your. Learn to live with it.
By the way, any interests you would like to declare ?.

Iwasfrozen · 07-06-2008 4:35pm

Yes, it is my opinion, witch is what Libertas is, an opinion.
It seems we all have to live with these annoying little opinions.
Prove me wrong, show me the paragraph on the Lisbon Treaty that mentions any of the above.
I have read the Lisbon Treaty, have you ?

biko · 07-06-2008 4:40pm

Yes

Iwasfrozen · 07-06-2008 4:45pm

good, then you'll know what a good deal it is for Ireland

The_Minister · 07-06-2008 4:47pm

My opinion is that Iwasfrozen is a No stooge.

dlofnep · 07-06-2008 4:51pm

No campaign = Outlines why to vote no.

Yes campaign = Poster with local TD's face on it, smiling giving the thumbs up saying "Vote Yes".

Libertas are a right-wing crowd and are polar opposite to the rest of the no campaign.

The_Minister · 07-06-2008 5:01pm

Yes because Youth Def....I mean Coir are a real bunch of pinkos and crusties:rolleyes:

Lisbon is too complicated to be sold on a poster, most of the selling is done through leaflets and by getting people to read the Treaty.

JC 2K3 · 07-06-2008 5:11pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It seems we all have to live with these annoying little opinions.

Welcome to democracy :pac:

dlofnep · 07-06-2008 5:23pm

The_Minister wrote: »

Yes because Youth Def....I mean Coir are a real bunch of pinkos and crusties:rolleyes:

Lisbon is too complicated to be sold on a poster, most of the selling is done through leaflets and by getting people to read the Treaty.

It's a disingenous campaign to stick up the local TD's face and get people to vote based on their familiarty with him, rather than the LT. For me, the yes campaign seems to be attacking the NO campaign and using the above tactics rather than outlining the benefits of accepting the Lisbon Treaty.

sink · 07-06-2008 5:26pm

dlofnep wrote: »

It's a disingenous campaign to stick up the local TD's face and get people to vote based on their familiarty with him, rather than the LT. For me, the yes campaign seems to be attacking the NO campaign and using the above tactics rather than outlining the benefits of accepting the Lisbon Treaty.

I agree the yes camp is being run extraordinarily badly. But they are right when they bring the no campaigners to account for their blatant lies.

mrquiteaguy · 07-06-2008 5:29pm

Reasons why there are going to be 5 no votes in my household.

It doesn't seem democratic to me not to allow all voters in all the 27 countries to vote on this.There should be a referendum in all the countries.
I am sick of politicians knowing and deciding whats good for me.
Brian Cowen strikes me as a bit of a bully,calling people ******.
Call me cynical but i only see the E.U Parliment as another well paid career opportunity for our politicians.
Anyone living here knows how our country has changed from being Irish to feeling like it is no longer our country.
For me this vote is a vote for Irish identity.

is_that_so · 07-06-2008 5:33pm

mrquiteaguy wrote: »

Reasons why there are going to be 5 no votes in my household.

It doesn't seem democratic to me not to allow all voters in all the 27 countries to vote on this.

They have voted on it through their parliaments who in turn were voted in by the people.

BJC · 07-06-2008 5:34pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So far Libertas and their Scaremonging have gone as far as "Vote No or join a EU super state" or "Vote Yes and we will be forced to accept Gay Marriage, Abortion, Euthanasia etc."
Bull****.

I am pro-choice and I'm still in the no vote. So those scare tactics do not appeal to me at all.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Don't make me laugh, This treaty must be ratified by ALL states in the EU, They may not get a referendum, but their Elected Officials have helped in putting the Treaty together.

That means nothing, all our major political parties are telling us to vote yes except sinn fein, that doesnt mean we agree to it just like the people of the countries whos governments drew up the treaty don't necessarily agree to it.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The EU has been good for Ireland and with your help we can make sure the EU will continue to be good for Ireland.
without the EU the Celtic Tiger would never have been born

The EU will continue to be very good for Ireland under the current constitution.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

this small insignificant island.

Taking into consideration our contribution to the world as a whole especially in the area of information technology and pharmaceuticals, how can you cal our tiny Island "insignificant".

dlofnep · 07-06-2008 5:37pm

is_that_so wrote: »

They have voted on it through their parliaments who in turn were voted in by the people.

The point is, the elite voted on behalf of the people who had no voice in the matter. Just because you vote for someone doesn't mean you agree with every decision that they will make, and when it comes to important areas like this - the people should be afforded the right to vote. It's undemocratic to not allow the people of the EU a say. Spin it whatever way you like.

The_Minister · 07-06-2008 5:37pm

dlofnep wrote: »

It's a disingenous campaign to stick up the local TD's face and get people to vote based on their familiarty with him, rather than the LT. For me, the yes campaign seems to be attacking the NO campaign and using the above tactics rather than outlining the benefits of accepting the Lisbon Treaty.

And that is why Mary Lou isn't on any SF posters, and Joe Higgins wouldn't been seen dead on a Liabon poster, right?
Wrong.
There are two reasons that those politicians are on those posters:
1. They are people who are respected and endorsed by the people as being able to make decisions for the public, and thus their opinion is important, as they are saying that this treaty is good for Ireland. (this doesn't apply to the Labour posters of nobies obviously).
2. To get faces known for the locals. And yes, SF are doing this like any other party.

dlofnep · 07-06-2008 5:39pm

Mary Lou may have been on a few posters, but the rest of Ireland has been generic Sinn Féin posters. I know this because I came back from Portugal last week and on my way home from the airport, I saw generic Sinn Féin posters with no politicians on them all the way home.

In retrospect, the FF & FG posters were plastered with TD's - with the vote yes slogan. SF used it's poster space to highlight some key areas. So no, you're incorrect. The ratio of posters that SF have politicians on is probably about .005%

mrquiteaguy · 07-06-2008 5:43pm

is_that_so
Just thought i would make the point.
Mrquiteaguy.

sink · 07-06-2008 5:46pm

dlofnep wrote: »

In retrospect, the FF & FG posters were plastered with TD's - with the vote yes slogan. SF used it's poster space to highlight some key areas. So no, you're incorrect. The ratio of posters that SF have politicians on is probably about .005%

Really I've seen lots of FG td's and councillors on poster, but all the FF ones have no photos on them.

Daftendirekt · 07-06-2008 5:48pm

The problem the yes campaign has, is that the benefits of the Lisbon Treaty aren't easily condensed down to a slogan. And I agree that the yes campaign should be doing a better job in informing people about the treaty, but at the moment, they aren't getting a chance to sell it on it's benefits, when they're having to focus their efforts on countering all the misinformation put forth by the no side.

BMH · 07-06-2008 5:50pm

mrquiteaguy wrote: »

It doesn't seem democratic to me not to allow all voters in all the 27 countries to vote on this.There should be a referendum in all the countries.

This was not an EU decision, this was the decision of the governments in those countries. It has nothing to do with the EU, and if the EU was seen to force governments in holding a costly referendum, there'd be far more bitching about encroachment on sovereignty. Hardly a valid reason to vote no.

I am sick of politicians knowing and deciding whats good for me.
Brian Cowen strikes me as a bit of a bully,calling people ******.

Again, absolutely nothing to do with the treaty.

Call me cynical but i only see the E.U Parliment as another well paid career opportunity for our politicians.

...Are you serious?

Anyone living here knows how our country has changed from being Irish to feeling like it is no longer our country.
For me this vote is a vote for Irish identity.

If you talking about the influx of Polish migrants that managed to keep our inflation under control and sustain our economic boom a little while longer, the treaty doesn't change anything there.

BMH · 07-06-2008 5:51pm

BJC wrote: »

I am pro-choice and I'm still in the no vote. So those scare tactics do not appeal to me at all.

Why are you voting no? Caeuc's reasons?

dlofnep · 07-06-2008 5:51pm

sink wrote: »

Really I've seen lots of FG td's and councillors on poster, but all the FF ones have no photos on them.

Pretty sure all the FF poster's I've seen had TD's on them.

The_Minister · 07-06-2008 5:52pm

dlofnep wrote: »

Mary Lou may have been on a few posters, but the rest of Ireland has been generic Sinn Féin posters. I know this because I came back from Portugal last week and on my way home from the airport, I saw generic Sinn Féin posters with no politicians on them all the way home.

In retrospect, the FF & FG posters were plastered with TD's - with the vote yes slogan. SF used it's poster space to highlight some key areas. So no, you're incorrect. The ratio of posters that SF have politicians on is probably about .005%

As Sink says, the vast majority of the FF ones are just about the referendum.

And 0.005% me shiny. I would say at the very least half of those in Dublin have her face on them.

dlofnep · 07-06-2008 5:58pm

I don't live in Dublin, so I can't say - but the rest of Ireland has been generic posters and I've been through a few counties. I could go take a few pictures of random posters in my own city if you like.

Off-topic - the font colour for the SF posters is absolutely stupid. Unless you're up near it, it's unreadable.

Also off-topic - does anybody know who's posting up the red and white no campaign posters? There is no name under them. There are not from SF, and I don't think it's libertas either as they have been putting their names up on theirs.

eoin2nc · 07-06-2008 5:58pm

As I can see it there is no real benefit of the Lisbon Treaty. Its just that the EU now with 27 members is being run the same way as it was with 15. The Treaty is needed to streamline the EU and how it works. Its not going to affect our 'Irishness' tax rates ect. The EU has been the best thing to happen to this country since our independence. I cant understand some peoples fear of it, 'I dont know what the Treaty is about, but its coming from Europe, Im going to vote NO' That is the biggest reasons for people voting no at the moment

is_that_so · 07-06-2008 6:01pm

dlofnep wrote: »

The point is, the elite voted on behalf of the people who had no voice in the matter. Just because you vote for someone doesn't mean you agree with every decision that they will make, and when it comes to important areas like this - the people should be afforded the right to vote. It's undemocratic to not allow the people of the EU a say. Spin it whatever way you like.

No spin at work here at all. Our constitution requires a referendum, other EU countries don't. I think that is commonly known as a fact.

dlofnep · 07-06-2008 6:01pm

eoin2nc wrote: »

As I can see it there is no real benefit of the Lisbon Treaty. Its just that the EU now with 27 members is being run the same way as it was with 15. The Treaty is needed to streamline the EU and how it works. Its not going to affect our 'Irishness' tax rates ect. The EU has been the best thing to happen to this country since our independence. I cant understand some peoples fear of it, 'I dont know what the Treaty is about, but its coming from Europe, Im going to vote NO' That is the biggest reasons for people voting no at the moment

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.

sink · 07-06-2008 6:05pm

dlofnep wrote: »

Also off-topic - does anybody know who's posting up the red and white no campaign posters? There is no name under them. There are not from SF, and I don't think it's libertas either as they have been putting their names up on theirs.

I think that's coir.

BJC · 07-06-2008 6:06pm

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).

BMH · 07-06-2008 6:07pm

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.

BMH · 07-06-2008 6:11pm

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?

dlofnep · 07-06-2008 6:17pm

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.

sink · 07-06-2008 6:21pm

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.

BJC · 07-06-2008 6:22pm

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.

BMH · 07-06-2008 6:22pm

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.

Darragh29 · 07-06-2008 6:24pm

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.

BMH · 07-06-2008 6:27pm

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.

Scofflaw · 07-06-2008 6:27pm

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

Darragh29 · 07-06-2008 6:28pm

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.

sink · 07-06-2008 6:29pm

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%).

BMH · 07-06-2008 6:31pm

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...

sink · 07-06-2008 6:32pm

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.

BMH · 07-06-2008 6:33pm

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...

is_that_so · 07-06-2008 6:36pm

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".

dlofnep · 07-06-2008 6:38pm

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?

BMH · 07-06-2008 6:42pm

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.

BJC · 07-06-2008 6:43pm

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.

Darragh29 · 07-06-2008 6:43pm

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!!!

Why No ??

Comments