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.
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.
Irish Friends vote 'No' for me (please!)
Comments
-
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.
So, you also do not want the European laws on the environment? or the laws on equality? I know you will say we could have implemented these on our own, but the reality is that we did not, and we would not perhaps.
We want common EU environmental laws, so that for example a few countries cannot relax their laws to allow industry to pollute more and hence operate more cheaply.
Ix0 -
Benfatto banned for soapboxing. I've issued enough warnings lately.0
-
Is this not clear enough?
No, its 120 pages, even are own government ministers haven't read the whole thingSo you're just going to vote 'No' because you don't like the EU? How original...
No, i'd vote no because of the IMPLEMENTATION of the lisbon treaty, not because i don't like the EU, or even the content of it, stop twisting my words.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?
No and i think this is where i have a different perspective, you see, i can't vote anyway, i'm an Irish expat living in the Netherlands. The Dutch have a very Anti-EU attitude when it comes from everything to immigration to protecting their economy.
Energy trading .. are you having a laugh, as it so happens i work for what will be the largest energy trading company in Europe and if anything, EU regulations give business a massive advantage but workers lose out !0 -
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.Life ain't always empty.
0 -
That excuse (in bold) keeps coming up over and over again; it means nothing. If you're not arsed reading the treaty itself, then why not consult the referendum commission? Everything you need to know is there.No, its 120 pages, even are own government ministers haven't read the whole thing
That doesn't make any sense; the treaty won't be implemented if it is not ratified. You're voting 'No' because of something that has yet to happen?No, i'd vote no because of the IMPLEMENTATION of the lisbon treaty...
If that's the case (I don't believe it is) then they should definitely vote 'Yes' to Lisbon - then they can leave the EU altogether.The Dutch have a very Anti-EU attitude when it comes from everything to immigration to protecting their economy.
Besides, in the case of the Netherlands, voting 'No' to Lisbon in some kind of effort to combat immigration would be rather foolish considering most of their immigrants are non-EU.
I never even mentioned the word 'trading'.Energy trading .. are you having a laugh...0 -
Advertisement
-
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.More accurately, the pace increased in the 1980s and has been steady ever since.
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,
Scofflaw0 -
That excuse (in bold) keeps coming up over and over again; it means nothing. If you're not arsed reading the treaty itself, then why not consult the referendum commission? Everything you need to know is there.
How can an elected politician advise either way if they havent read it ? Isn't that their job ?That doesn't make any sense; the treaty won't be implemented if it is not ratified. You're voting 'No' because of something that has yet to happen?
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.If that's the case (I don't believe it is) then they should definitely vote 'Yes' to Lisbon - then they can leave the EU altogether.
Economically yes, but politically no, its a mixed bag, They want to keep immigration under their control, even some of the newer EU states still require work permits to work in the Netherlands (Slovakia being one).
The 30% ruling for example, this will be lost as Germany sees this as an unfair advantage.
BPM tax on Cars etc, again, the EU wants this done away with as they see it breaching open market policy, when the Dutch just don't want any more cars on the road due to population density.
Some of the Energy/Environmental policys just wouldn't work here either, infact some of the legislation in the Netherlands is more strict than that of the EU, this is something they've been doing for quite a few years as the Randstad region of the Netherlands is the most poluted are in Europe.
Its a whole different debate, but they don't want Brussels to decide all this for them.Besides, in the case of the Netherlands, voting 'No' to Lisbon in some kind of effort to combat immigration would be rather foolish considering most of their immigrants are non-EU.
New immigration, not existing, different thing altogether.0 -
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.How can an elected politician advise either way if they havent read it ?
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?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.
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.Economically yes, but politically no, its a mixed bag...
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!!!".0 -
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.
Yup, great that you get to make up your own mind ... isn't it.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?
Part of the Implementation process is selling it to the people, not just stealthily rushing it through. This is not a communist state (the EU) whereby its for the good of the people so it just gets implemented.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.
Actually the Netherlands contributes quite alot to the EU, the ICJ, European patent offices, European Documentation Offices all tax free sites and just a few by any means. Holland has given more than its got.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!!!".
Still not the Issue, they dont want more, they want whats right.0 -
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).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.
[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.0 -
Advertisement
-
This is just not practical. Apart from the huge number of bi-lateral agreements, which would require an army of diploments, you are suggesting trade penalties for breaching (or not agreeing to) such an agreement. Since you want the EU to regulate trade, this then involves the EU directly in that environmental dispute. By your logic the EU would have no environmental powers so some or all of the states could happily ignore your concerns and keep trading. Don't you see the contradiction?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.
I do share your concern. Not that those countries would revert back to satellites of Russia, but rather that there could be some conflict there. However in that event the EU is likely to be the peacekeeper and not an aggressor. Post-Lisbon EU will be in a better position to negotiate on such energy concerns. So, you can see why those small countries really want the EU to prosper.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.
Ix.0 -
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.0 -
I don't believe every EU treaty/policy has seen 100% adherence either. Aren't ational governments supposed to keep borrowing within a specified percentage of GDP (3%?)? Isn't it true that many states flouted and continue to flout this stipulation? That's just one example.
Secondly, 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.
What if it does get really bad...China begins to suck all the gas from Russia and the russians begin to close the valve west. Now, say Ireland discovers modest gas reserves...will we be forced (at gunpoint by the EU army*) to pipe it to Warsaw?
*inserted for humour only, but it could happen :pac:0 -
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.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.
Cover-to-cover? Why? What purpose would it serve? How would that make you feel better?I firmly believe every single TD should have read and understood it (having it explained to them where necessary)...
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....they should keep their mouths shut and their posters off the lamp posts (on both sides of the argument).
The lads above have already explained why this is just not practical.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.
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?...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.0 -
Because first they are our representatives who we elect to be informed not follow the gravy train. If they're not informed how can we trust anything they say?Cover-to-cover? Why? What purpose would it serve? How would that make you feel better?
Second, as nesf keeps saying they have more to lose if they get it wrong. We're supposed to look to them for advice, if they haven't read all of it, what's there to say that the most important part is that part they didn't read.0 -
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.If they're not informed how can we trust anything they say?
Really?!? That's news to me! If anything, I would say it's the other way around!We're supposed to look to them for advice...0 -
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.
Really?!? That's news to me! If anything, I would say it's the other way around!
Ok so in the first point you claim that the TD *may* in fact be informed and then in the second you claim that we should not be looking for this *informed* TD's advice? Okay....:rolleyes:
That makes lots of sense, maybe even more than those uninformed TD's we shouldn't be listening to:D0 -
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56198192&postcount=922Ok so in the first point you claim that the TD *may* in fact be informed and then in the second you claim that we should not be looking for this *informed* TD's advice? Okay....:rolleyes:
That makes lots of sense, maybe even more than those uninformed TD's we shouldn't be listening to:D0 -
I would say they most likely are, yes.Ok so in the first point you claim that the TD *may* in fact be informed...
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....and then in the second you claim that we should not be looking for this *informed* TD's advice?
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.
FionnMatthew has already provided a very good post on the subject.0 -
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".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.
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?0 -
Advertisement
-
Once again, that has absolutely no bearing on anything. The YES camp should only be listened to if they have good reasons and valid arguments, which might be used as data for your own decision, and which might increase the utility of your vote by dialogue. Without that, "what other people think" ought to have damn all effect on what you think, especially if you don't know what you think yet, and don't want to have to do the work to find out, so you watch others to see what they do, and follow them if you feel so inclined, and do the opposite if they irk you.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".
If you ask me, no they should not be banned, but parties should conduct themselves more responsibly, and in accordance with the ideals of democracy, and stop trying to use PR to sway the electorate. And the electorate, likewise, should stop behaving like a bunch of so many children, and decide whether they want to vote rationally or not, and stop watching everyone else for cues.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?
In effect, the whole civic unit should grow up.
Banning things is excusing people from their responsibilities. It would be better for everyone if we all learned how to behave properly without being guided. That's the whole point, isn't it?0
Advertisement