Why are YOU voting no ?

johnnyq · 12-06-2008 1:14pm

Dandelion6 wrote: »

1. In general I don't like the direction the EU has been taking. I think the balance between "community of sovereign states" and "federal superstate" is tilting too far in the latter direction.

2. There's too much emphasis on the free market. Recent decisions such as the ECJ in the Laval case, the order for Dublin to scrap its plans for free Wifi and the refusal to allow the Government ban credit card surcharges because they "distort competition" - these point to where the EU's priorities lie and they are not with the working people of Europe.

3. The requirements to build up military capability. There is no justification for Ireland doing so. And having travelled recently to some of the poorest corners of the EU, including Romania and Bulgaria, I think they definitely have better things they could be spending their money on. In terms of the requirement that member states come to the aid of each other in the event of an attack on one, these days most of the member states who are at risk of any sort of attack are at a risk at their own making, so I don't see why all the rest should be required to bail them out.

I totally echo what you are saying there. At least with a no vote some of them can be changed.

With a yes vote that opportunity is gone (possibly for a very long time)

molloyjh · 12-06-2008 1:18pm

johnnyq wrote: »

I totally echo what you are saying there. At least with a no vote some of them can be changed.

With a yes vote that opportunity is gone (possibly for a very long time)

What? Nothing in the Treaty is permanent unless the members states want it to be. The Treaty can be amended at any time provided the support is there for it.

jmayo · 12-06-2008 3:31pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

This is not a vote on the WTO deal.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes you are right it is not a vote on World Trade Talks, it is a vote on how the EU is to be managed in the future.
If our government cannot be relied upon to fight for an industry that contributes employment and sizable exports to the Irish economy, then can they be relied upon to have negotiated a fair deal for Ireland and can they be relied upon to fight for our interests in the years ahead.
I know you will now state this is not a vote on the government or the political parties, but they are the ones telling us and indeed subtley threatening us to vote for this treaty.

I am not happy with the way the EU has been developing.
I do not want Turkey or fomer Yugoslav republics accused of war crimes to be considered for membership, I feel that the latest entrants should be given time to bed in, I do not agree with pushing treaties on voters until they give the desired result, ignoring the populations of countries that
have rejected the constitution (of which this treaty is effectively a rehash), the long term aim of some major EU players to create a federal Europe (one external voice through president/foreign minister and one eventual military machine).
I believe the Laval ruling is the thin end of the wedge.
After the EU spending years and millions on administration creating a structure that is supposed to have guaranteed food security, it is now about to sell it out over night in WTO.
Thus this is my protest.

The pro side of course will counter this should not be a protest vote on EU but I should look just at the treaty itself.
But how then do I show the EU institutions and players that I am not happy with the direction the EU has been taking, sign a petition that has no real standing or perhaps talk to one of the parliament's over expensed MEPs ?
Of course I will also be labelled a xenophobe, a nationalist, a ludeite, narrowminded, a provo fellow traveller, an oppressor of thrid world people and farmers, a would be CIA facilitator, whatever.
Maybe I am just concerned and think it is time the beurocrats stopped their ego trips.

turgon · 12-06-2008 3:40pm

jmayo wrote: »

Of course I will also be labelled a xenophobe, a nationalist, a ludeite, narrowminded, a provo fellow traveller, an oppressor of thrid world people and farmers, a would be CIA facilitator, whatever.

No - you will be a labeled a Euroskeptic. If you don't follow the EU's line on the Treaty you are called a Euroskeptic. If you don't like a part of the EU, your a Eurposkeptic.

You see, it is convenient for the Yes side to fence all No siders into a big group of "Euroskeptics" and then just ramble on about how good the EU is. When in fact, people just want the EU to stay the way it is and have some genuine concerns about the treaty.

VoidStarNull · 12-06-2008 3:42pm

jmayo wrote: »

Maybe I am just concerned and think it is time the beurocrats stopped their ego trips.

I'm curious, why do the poor bureaucrats in Brussels always get it in the neck? Their job is just to help the national governments draw up and implement European policies. They don't have the power to decide legislation, or to make decisions on international agreements between the member states.

When we transfer soveignty to Brussels, we are not giving it to bureaucrats. We are saying that instead of deciding certain issues (like climate change policy) at national level, we will decide them at EU level by agreement among the elected governments.

oscarBravo · 12-06-2008 3:50pm

turgon wrote: »

You see, it is convenient for the Yes side to fence all No siders into a big group...

*ahem*

molloyjh · 12-06-2008 3:57pm

turgon wrote: »

No - you will be a labeled a Euroskeptic. If you don't follow the EU's line on the Treaty you are called a Euroskeptic. If you don't like a part of the EU, your a Eurposkeptic.

You see, it is convenient for the Yes side to fence all No siders into a big group of "Euroskeptics" and then just ramble on about how good the EU is. When in fact, people just want the EU to stay the way it is and have some genuine concerns about the treaty.

That reminds me of the line in the last Star Wars movie from Obi-Wan: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes".
ALL of the Yes side? Does that not constitute this "fencing" you are complaining about? And when you say "people" does that mean you are speaking for everyone? Does everybody "want the EU to stay the way it is"? Even me?:eek:

Call Me Jimmy · 12-06-2008 4:00pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

*ahem*

heh, countless times I've seen this from both sides, it is pretty funny!

12-06-2008 4:01pm

jmayo wrote: »

If our government cannot be relied upon to fight for an industry that contributes employment and sizable exports to the Irish economy, then can they be relied upon to have negotiated a fair deal for Ireland and can they be relied upon to fight for our interests in the years ahead.
I know you will now state this is not a vote on the government or the political parties, but they are the ones telling us and indeed subtley threatening us to vote for this treaty.

Firstly this government has promised the IFA that it will veto the mandelson wto proposals as they are bad for this country.I actually have a letter to that effect in front of me here and a recommendation from them to vote yes.

As regards the bona fide's of the parties on the yes side,you have got to be having a laugh.The biggest party on the no side in Sinn Féin and then theres the unelected libertas,the lady from the GP that almost lost her deposit in Dublin central last time out etc etc.

I rest my case as to whose bona fidé's are stronger to be frank.

sink · 12-06-2008 4:02pm

turgon wrote: »

You see, it is convenient for the Yes side to fence all No siders into a big group

Is that not the definition of irony?

jmayo · 12-06-2008 4:10pm

turgon wrote: »

No - you will be a labeled a Euroskeptic. If you don't follow the EU's line on the Treaty you are called a Euroskeptic. If you don't like a part of the EU, your a Eurposkeptic.

You see, it is convenient for the Yes side to fence all No siders into a big group of "Euroskeptics" and then just ramble on about how good the EU is. When in fact, people just want the EU to stay the way it is and have some genuine concerns about the treaty.

Well I am skeptical of everything. Never thought of those above labels

VoidStarNull wrote: »

I'm curious, why do the poor bureaucrats in Brussels always get it in the neck? Their job is just to help the national governments draw up and implement European policies. They don't have the power to decide legislation, or to make decisions on international agreements between the member states.

When we transfer soveignty to Brussels, we are not giving it to bureaucrats. We are saying that instead of deciding certain issues (like climate change policy) at national level, we will decide them at EU level by agreement among the elected governments.

It is not the paper pusher in an office I have the problem with, it is the ones higher up who are the brains trust that come up with some of the bright ideas that are the problem. Also it is major players behind deciding future goals and directions that I have issue with, the likes of Giscard d'Estaing etc.

"When we transfer soveignty to Brussels" a telling statement indeed.

I just love the argument that if we vote Yes to Lisbon, then we will be well on our way to solving climate change issues. Do we need to sign this treaty to allow cooperation on environmental issues. Have we not all signed up to Kyoto ?
Maybe they really have a cunning plan to allow cheap food imports into EU, thus causing the EU herds to be culled with the end result of cutting our green house gas emmissions

jmayo · 12-06-2008 4:11pm

sink wrote: »

Is that not the definition of irony?

Sorry I thought irony was having 10,000 spoons when all you need is a fork ?
Maybe it is EU irony

molloyjh · 12-06-2008 4:12pm

jmayo wrote: »

Sorry I thought irony was having 10,000 spoons when all you need is a fork ?
Maybe it is EU irony

Well knife really, but we were all thinking it!!!!!

jmayo · 12-06-2008 4:15pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Firstly this government has promised the IFA that it will veto the mandelson wto proposals as they are bad for this country.I actually have a letter to that effect in front of me here and a recommendation from them to vote yes.

As regards the bona fide's of the parties on the yes side,you have got to be having a laugh.The biggest party on the no side in Sinn Féin and then theres the unelected libertas,the lady from the GP that almost lost her deposit in Dublin central last time out etc etc.

I rest my case as to whose bona fidé's are stronger to be frank.

Did I ever say I would trust the eejits on the NO side ?
Good God they could not agree on night and day normally.
The SF are fighting for our low corpo tax even though normally mary lou, the peacemaker, is fighting to puit it up to 50%.
But does any of that mean I would trust the main political parties and in particular the one whose leader had to have a gun to his head to actaully state they would veto WTO talks as is ?

molloyjh · 12-06-2008 4:18pm

jmayo wrote: »

Did I ever say I would trust the eejits on the NO side ?
Good God they could not agree on night and day normally.
The SF are fighting for our low corpo tax even though normally mary lou, the peacemaker, is fighting to puit it up to 50%.
But does any of that mean I would trust the main political parties and in particular the one whose leader had to have a gun to his head to actaully state they would veto WTO talks as is ?

As I've said before don't listen to a single one of them. I can't blame anyone for being skeptical of any of them! Thank the stars for the Referendum Commission and lisbontreaty2008.ie is all I can say!

VoidStarNull · 12-06-2008 4:42pm

jmayo wrote: »

"When we transfer soveignty to Brussels" a telling statement indeed.

It's not my phrase, it's the phrase used by NO campaigners when they argue that we are handing it over to Bureaucrats.

Note that if you are against the idea of pooling sovereignty, then you are against the whole concept of the EU. That's fair enough and I'm sure some people genuinely believe that. But funnily enough, nobody argues for it.

Where are all the genuinely anti-EU folk? Are they all pretending to believe that the "EU could be better than Lisbon"

12-06-2008 4:51pm

jmayo wrote: »

But does any of that mean I would trust the main political parties and in particular the one whose leader had to have a gun to his head to actaully state they would veto WTO talks as is ?

Well my point is I'd fairly well trust them over that other lot.
I'd also be mindfull(though I'm confidently trustworthy of them anyway so I don't need to be overly mindfull) of the fact that the 3 main parties spend a lot of time and effort scrutinising and being critical of each other.
Therefore I'm happy enough that they know whats good in the treaty-especially when they are all agreed.

On this forum also which I've been reading pretty thoroughly,I've not seen a whole lot on the no side to counter scofflaws posts.
No arguments have been shot out of the water right left and centre by scofflaw and in an easily understandable way

As regards the WTO-I can understand why Cowen didn't want to show his hand as to what he was going to do regarding the mandelson WTO proposals.
He was forced to show it though because otherwise people were going to say he wouldn't use it or worse that he hadn't the option.

Dandelion6 · 13-06-2008 6:49am

jmayo wrote: »

The SF are fighting for our low corpo tax even though normally mary lou, the peacemaker, is fighting to puit it up to 50%.

Cite for SF ever calling for it to be put up to 50%, please.

As far as I know the position is that it should be put up to 17.5% which is what the ESRI recommended. Still well below the rate in most other EU countries, at least of the pre-2004 group.

Why are YOU voting no ?

Comments