Why are YOU voting no ?

oscarBravo · 07-05-2008 6:23pm

boomslang wrote: »

I think every country should have a commissioner at all times!

If we vote no, we'll lose our permanent commissioner next year. If we vote yes, it won't happen until 2014.

turgon · 07-05-2008 9:43pm

nesf wrote: »

Um, your point?

Tighter relations = increased bonds = pressure to commit to war

Scofflaw · 07-05-2008 10:49pm

turgon wrote: »

Tighter relations = increased bonds = pressure to commit to war

So we were under a lot of pressure to commit to the Iraq war, then?

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf · 07-05-2008 11:41pm

turgon wrote: »

Tighter relations = increased bonds = pressure to commit to war

Eh, when you take the insignificant size of our armed forces into account then it's easier to see why we've not been put under any significant pressure to send our troops to war. The military might the Irish Army could provide would not be worth the political fall out that pressuring Ireland to commit to war would incur. It's not like we have any tanks, aircraft or ships worth talking about.

Now, using our airports, that's the kind of concession that it is worth getting out of us and that seems to be happening with or without this Treaty so it's hardly relevant to the discussion to be honest.

brianthebard · 08-05-2008 5:04pm

nesf wrote: »

You're right, it isn't explicitly stated, it's legislation and wants to be written into the constitution by some parties/groups. Apologies, I'm distracted by my final year exams starting on Tuesday and making mistakes.

It can be changed by future Governments, the treaty still doesn't override it though iirc.

I know that, but while its not written into the constitution its just a government decision from being changed without even needing a referendum I might add. Good luck with the final exams, its a crazy time!

nesf · 08-05-2008 6:18pm

brianthebard wrote: »

I know that, but while its not written into the constitution its just a government decision from being changed without even needing a referendum I might add.

That doesn't in itself bother me. Sending Irish troops into an aggressive battle would severely damage any Government. Those who believe we should be more active militarily are very much in the minority here and it would be political suicide for a Government to abuse the notion of our neutrality/non-aligned status to that extent. People don't seem to have much of a problem with the whole Shannon thing (i.e. there were protests but it was a small minority that got seriously worked up about it, most people didn't care from what I saw/heard). I think actually sending our troops to war would provoke a much stronger backlash though even among those who favour non-military aid to combatants we are friendly with.

brianthebard wrote: »

Good luck with the final exams, its a crazy time!

Two down and three to go. As my mother would say, "the back is broken in it".

brianthebard · 08-05-2008 6:22pm

the government doesn't have to go to war immediately after changing our neutral status. FG are in favour of a European strike force afaik. (not 100% on that though). I just think that on that issue a referendum to decide where we stand before progressing any further on the issue in Europe is needed.

nesf · 08-05-2008 6:25pm

brianthebard wrote: »

the government doesn't have to go to war immediately after changing our neutral status. FG are in favour of a European strike force afaik. (not 100% on that though). I just think that on that issue a referendum to decide where we stand before progressing any further on the issue in Europe is needed.

Neutrality should be a fluid and flexible thing. There are situations (highly unlikely ones) that I'd back us going to war in, but they'd be rare. Some hostile army invading Europe would be one of them, mutual defence in such a situation would be to our advantage (I'm thinking along the lines of an army doing it, not mere terrorist attacks with a possible link to some other country here, like I said highly unlikely to happen, but...). I'd not be a big fan of the idea of strict total neutrality to be honest. I think war can, in very limited circumstances, be justified.

Kev_ps3 · 09-05-2008 11:10am

I havent read the Treaty but im still voting no. Im anti-EU so anything that makes the EU stronger is going to get a big fat no from me anyway.

nesf · 09-05-2008 11:29am

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Im anti-EU so anything that makes the EU stronger is going to get a big fat no from me anyway.

See that's one of the best "No" arguments. If someone is genuinely Euro-sceptic I can't why on earth they'd even consider voting Yes.

brianthebard · 10-05-2008 3:27pm

nesf wrote: »

Neutrality should be a fluid and flexible thing. There are situations (highly unlikely ones) that I'd back us going to war in, but they'd be rare. Some hostile army invading Europe would be one of them, mutual defence in such a situation would be to our advantage (I'm thinking along the lines of an army doing it, not mere terrorist attacks with a possible link to some other country here, like I said highly unlikely to happen, but...). I'd not be a big fan of the idea of strict total neutrality to be honest. I think war can, in very limited circumstances, be justified.

Yes but even neutral countries reserve the right to defend themselves if attacked, they don't just roll over and take it from an invading force. I'm not sure you totally understand what neutrality means for a country.

nesf · 10-05-2008 3:43pm

brianthebard wrote: »

Yes but even neutral countries reserve the right to defend themselves if attacked, they don't just roll over and take it from an invading force. I'm not sure you totally understand what neutrality means for a country.

I'm talking about that idea of self-defence being extended out to allies which neutral countries by definition don't do. Personally, I think it is a good thing because it increases the deterrent against military action being taken against a bloc because to fight one of us is to fight twenty seven of us etc.

Tipsy Mac · 10-05-2008 4:07pm

I am voting no because the government of our country is acting illegally by preventing the movement of goods into Ireland from across the EU by imposing an import tariff on them, when the illegal import tariff (VRT) is lifted I will vote yes.

mikemac · 10-05-2008 4:13pm

Tipsy Mac wrote: »

I am voting no because the government of our country is acting illegally by preventing the movement of goods into Ireland from across the EU by imposing an import tariff on them, when the illegal import tariff (VRT) is lifted I will vote yes.

It's not a tax on importing your car, it's a tax on registering it.
If you want to import a car and never register it and leave it in your garage, then no VRT afaik. Who would do that though

That's a debate for another thread though but I suppose it's a good a reason as any

Tipsy Mac · 10-05-2008 5:14pm

micmclo wrote: »

It's not a tax on importing your car, it's a tax on registering it.

This isn't the case as someone who is a resident of another EU state and has owned their car for 6 months can register it here for free. Again it's for another thread but it really does P me off when one of the main reasons we voted for the EU was free trade and that basic right is denied to Irish people and the government get away with it as the EU shows a blind eye to it.

oscarBravo · 10-05-2008 5:30pm

Tipsy Mac wrote: »

I am voting no because the government of our country is acting illegally by preventing the movement of goods into Ireland from across the EU by imposing an import tariff on them, when the illegal import tariff (VRT) is lifted I will vote yes.

This would be a logical position if a yes vote would cement the status quo, as opposed to a no vote changing it. As it stands, it's not logical: Lisbon has nothing to do with VRT.

It's like the earlier thread about voting no as a protest against the health service. If thousands of people vote no for thousands of reasons that have nothing to do with the treaty, what will they have achieved?

Hotblack Desiato · 14-05-2008 1:42am

oscarBravo wrote: »

This would be a logical position if a yes vote would cement the status quo, as opposed to a no vote changing it. As it stands, it's not logical: Lisbon has nothing to do with VRT.

The "VRT is illegal" argument is a nonsense anyway, we are not the only EU country to operate a VRT system, and the EU has ruled that VRT does not contravene the single market.

JohnMc1 · 14-05-2008 5:51pm

I'm voting No due to the blatant vagueness of this whole thing. It can't be good for Ireland in the long run if they can't come out and say what the treaty is for. I can't believe Fianna Fall and Fianna Gael are putting up signs saying to vote Yes but can't/won't give us any reasons to vote for it.

sink · 14-05-2008 5:55pm

JohnMc1 wrote: »

I'm voting No due to the blatant vagueness of this whole thing. It can't be good for Ireland in the long run if they can't come out and say what the treaty is for. I can't believe Fianna Fall and Fianna Gael are putting up signs saying to vote Yes but can't/won't give us any reasons to vote for it.

Please visit http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/ and educate yourself. If you still want to vote no that's fine, but please don't vote no just because you can't be bothered to read.

JohnMc1 · 14-05-2008 6:00pm

sink wrote: »

Please visit http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/ and educate yourself. If you still want to vote no that's fine, but please don't vote no just because you can't be bothered to read.

I did and its still doesn't point blank state what this is for. And if you want people to think you're smart don't act like an asshole.

nesf · 14-05-2008 6:03pm

JohnMc1 wrote: »

I did and its still doesn't point blank state what this is for. And if you want people to think you're smart don't act like an asshole.

What do you mean by "what this is for"? Do you mean what will change or what does Ireland get out of it?

sink · 14-05-2008 6:17pm

JohnMc1 wrote: »

I did and its still doesn't point blank state what this is for. And if you want people to think you're smart don't act like an asshole.

I'm not trying to act like an asshole, but your complaining about not knowing what it's about when the information is everywhere. The treaty is complex, it can not be summed up in one sentence. That is the problem, the no vote will give you a nice simple answer like "Ireland will loose it's sovereignty". Unfortunately it's just not that simple. When the government says "it will provide a better framework for the EU to work more efficiently and effectively", people give out about them being vague. Then you provide them with exactly what the treaty will do and they ask you to sum it up in in one sentence "point blank" when you already have "it will provide a better framework for the EU to work more efficiently". Where is the vagueness? Point out the issues, where you are having trouble and I'll see if I can help.

egan007 · 15-05-2008 3:29pm

Voting no because - No proper independent information means an automatic No to me.....

sink wrote: »

Where is the vagueness? Point out the issues,

What does it mean for paye tax
what does it mean for self employed
what does it mean for farmers
what does it mean for our constitution....

the list goes on,

There needs to be a public information broadcast in plain jane english.

sink · 15-05-2008 3:36pm

egan007 wrote: »

Voting no because - No proper independent information means an automatic No to me.....

http://www.iiea.com/publicationx.php?publication_id=33

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/

Both these links are completely independent, they contain no pro's or con's about the treaty just the straight facts.

egan007 · 15-05-2008 3:39pm

sink wrote: »

http://www.iiea.com/publicationx.php?publication_id=33

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/

Both these links are completely independent, they contain no pro's or con's about the treaty just the straight facts.

Thanks, now I can get the information - only 2million others to go....

Don't say that people should go looking for it, that's like saying people should vote. It's an obvious statement but unrealistic. The majority are not interested enough, interest needs to be generated.

These issues need to be broadcast until people know what they are voting for inside out.

sink · 15-05-2008 3:49pm

egan007 wrote: »

What does it mean for paye tax

Nothing, has no effect on paye as this is a direct tax and is outside the scope and remit of the EU.

egan007 wrote: »

what does it mean for self employed

The treaty itself has no direct effect, meaning nothing will change in the day to day running as soon as the treaty is implemented. New laws which come about as a result of the rearranged voting powers in the council might have an effect, in much the same way that voting for a new dail will determine the type of laws that will come into effect during the tenure of that government.

egan007 wrote: »

what does it mean for farmers

Similarly the treay has not direct effect on farmers. But any new laws that come about as a result of the new voting arrangements might. It is important to note that the minister for agriculture has many allies in Europe such as the French and any laws that come about are likely to be more benefitial than harmful.

egan007 wrote: »

what does it mean for our constitution....

If you are refering to any future changes in the EU that effect our constitution. The government will still be leagally bound to hold a referendum. The goverenment will not have to ratify in the dail changes in the EU in certain areas that do not have an impact on our constitution

Hope this helped.

ixtlan · 15-05-2008 3:50pm

Tipsy Mac wrote: »

I am voting no because the government of our country is acting illegally by preventing the movement of goods into Ireland from across the EU by imposing an import tariff on them, when the illegal import tariff (VRT) is lifted I will vote yes.

Actually this shows the difficulty of negotiating a treaty and deciding what people really want. If I could put words in your mouth you would like the EU to be much tougher on individual states and force them to reduce barriers to trade and dare I add harmonise in this case car taxes.

However if you vote no and win, it more likely will be interpreted as a vote to be less strict on states and not force them to do as much for free trade.

In your case... I would humbly suggest you should vote yes, as a no would only solidify those things you are concerned about.

Ix.

ixtlan · 15-05-2008 4:00pm

egan007 wrote: »

Voting no because - No proper independent information means an automatic No to me.....

What does it mean for paye tax
what does it mean for self employed
what does it mean for farmers
what does it mean for our constitution....

the list goes on,

There needs to be a public information broadcast in plain jane english.

sink has answered these well. I would add that while I admire your effort to understand the very big picture of Lisbon and the EU, it's not really the right way to approach it to assume that Lisbon will have massive far-reaching effects. Really it is a continuation of Europe's integration. It does not change everything going forward. This is why the documents have been focussed on the specific changes that Lisbon brings. Unfortunately some people then interpret this as not explaining what the real effects are. In reality the real effects to people in the street will not be dramatic.

Rather than any massive changes Lisbon seeks to allow the EU to get business done more quickly. Look at the commission. There are 27 commissioners at the moment. Imagine chairing a meeting where 27 people wanted to make comments on a proposal. It's a compromise certainly but I can see the sense in trying to limit this to 18.

Ix.

shoutman · 15-05-2008 4:12pm

Apologies if my reasons have already been refuted by posts before this, but I do not have the time to trawl this thread.

I have an exam tommorrow in which there will probably be a question on this treaty.
Having done some, admittedly not a huge amount of, research, I feel that the cons outweigh the pros somewhat.

If i've read correctly, the main pro is that the EU will be streamlined, a lot of the red tape will be taken away, therefor allowing the EU to act more as a single entity rather then a group of countries involved in a pact of sorts.
A main part of the treaty is that the EU will now be thought as as a single legal entity.

So the cons for business are that it will probably help some of the less well off states, which may be better for business' in Ireland which are exporting. However is this not a double edged sword? Ie. will the emerging economies, being helped by the EU not become more competitive, and as a result Ireland loses some of its competitiveness?

My main reason for voting against it is that it seems to me that Ireland will lost its voting power. The Qualified Majority voting system seems like it would be disaster for Ireland. At the moment I think that Ireland has a position of power within the EU, which should this treaty be ratified we will lose.
For those who dont know Qualified Majority voting means that for a law to be passed it needs to have 55% of countries voting for it, and those countries voting for have to have 65% of the population of the EU.
So the likes of Ireland will not have much power unless it sides with a country with a big population.

I suppose it boils down to whether or not you want to be a European or Irish.
This treaty is designed to be good for Europe, and I suppose whats good for Europe will have a trickle on effect for Ireland. But at the same time the position Ireland is in at the moment, economic downturn and all, is still a lot stronger then I would imagine it will be if this treaty is ratified. Ireland will eventually become on par with the rest of Europe as opposed to leading Europe.

The fact that Ireland will only be represented in the decision making process every ten of fifteen years also seems worrying, (Am I wrong in this assumption, I know we will have impact through the parliment but will we have a vote?)

Also it seems like we would lose some of the power of controlling our economy as it will be bound by european made international treaties.....

I'm also not fond of the fact that the treaty would mean that Ireland would have to invest more funds in defence where the money could be used in other areas.

partholon · 15-05-2008 4:15pm

TBH im voting NO because i think pooling sovereignty has gone too far.

i didnt want nice to pass as it set up a two tier europe IMO.

I dont see the need for it. yes it makes things tougher for the politicians but so what? id rather the right thing be tough to agree on than the wrong thing be too easy.

thats my 2c anyway

Why are YOU voting no ?

Comments