Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

[darkman2]

October 2nd is the date - how do you intend to vote?

[solice]

See the sig

[bill_ashmount]

See the sig

[solice]

hmmm, if only i had a fancy graphic and a sensationalist slogan that used words like dictatorship im sure i could convince more people that my cause is just....

[bill_ashmount]

Originally Posted by solice

hmmm, if only i had a fancy graphic and a sensationalist slogan ..

You do, check your sig.

[solice]

And oddly enough they are all accurate! Isnt that amazing?

[nixmix]

I see nothing positive about the treaty so it will be a No from me.

[sparklepants]

OP, you could have included in your poll the most popular choice for most people: i.e. "won't vote".

It'll be a lukewarm Yes from me though, just like the last time.

[bijapos]

Some good things in Lisbon, BUT:

1. Dont see the need for the EDA, dont want it.
2. We said no, so did the French and the Dutch (who strangely enough arent being allowed to vote on the 'Lisbon' version)
3. Dont like the general direction Europe is heading and who influences it (lobbyists etc)

So its a No.

[PopeBuckfastXVI]

Originally Posted by bijapos

Some good things in Lisbon, BUT:

1. Dont see the need for the EDA, dont want it.
2. We said no, so did the French and the Dutch (who strangely enough arent being allowed to vote on the 'Lisbon' version)
3. Dont like the general direction Europe is heading and who influences it (lobbyists etc)

So its a No.

Well played that man, 'some good things in Lisbon', but voting 'no' for 3 reasons that are nothing to do with it. One of which (#2) is factually incorrect. Another of which (#3) Lisbon would actually help by increasing democratic accountability in decision making.

[solice]

Originally Posted by PopeBuckfastXVI

Well played that man, 'some good things in Lisbon', but voting 'no' for 3 reasons that are nothing to do with it. One of which (#2) is factually incorrect.

It would seem that people are still incapable of seperating Lisbon from their opinion on the EU as a whole.

Oddly enough, you would think that the Euro skeptics would be in favour of Lisbon as it would for the first time actually put in place a procedure to leave the union....but they cant think that far ahead, everything is act now, think later!

[bladespin]

No, for the second time, hate having to repeat myself lol.

Bit shocked at the way the 'no' vote was received last tiem, the EU pretty much ignored our decision and told us to choose again, if I had voted yes before it'd be a no now just for that.

[Martin 2]

Yes, the treaty gives me no reason to vote no.
Yes because its acceptance is best for the economy in the long run.
Yes, at heart I’m pro European.
Yes, because a No would leave Ireland isolated in Europe.

[ChocolateSauce]

Yes, because the claims of the yes side are backed up by evidence.

[FutureTaoiseach]

As a convinced pro-European I am voting No. Reasons:
1. I oppose the enshrinement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into EU law. This is the main issue for me. I don't trust the ECJ to interpret the Treaty in a manner that adequately respects the principle of subsidiarity as I see it. Article 6 of the TEU as amended by Lisbon states that the Charter will have the same legal-value as the Treaties. And who interprets the Treaties? In the final analysis the ECJ does through case-law. If this goes through, expect a flood of legal-challenges to Irish law on the supposed basis that it is repugnant to the Charter. I know Article 51 of the Charter states that the rights under the Charter apply to EU institutions but it also states that it applies to member states implementing EU law. The problem is that the Charter will itself be EU law. In that context, I am concerned that the ECJ will come out with rulings imposing the transposition of the Charter into national law in order to comply with EU law - of which the Charter will be part. I am unwilling to take the risk, especially with constitutional-law experts like Gerard Hogan warning last year to the National Forum on Europe that the Charter could "eclipse" the Supreme Court. This issue is so important to me, that I would have voted yes if Ireland had a Protocol opting us out of the Charter. The govt wasn't interested in that, so I will vote no.
2. I oppose the following provision in Part 2 - Paragraph 7 of the 28th amendment to the Constitution Bill 2009 that allows the Government, with the support of the Oireachtas, to surrender Protocol 21 that gives Ireland the right to optout of common policies in the areas of Justice and Home Affairs:

7° The State may exercise the options or discretions— i to which Article 20 of the Treaty on European Union relating to enhanced cooperation applies,
ii under Protocol No. 19 on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union annexed to that 25 treaty and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly known as the Treaty establishing the European Community), and
iii under Protocol No. 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, so annexed, including the option that the said Protocol No. 21 shall, in whole or in part, cease to apply to the State, but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

As Qualified Majority Voting is extended to Justice and Home Affairs under Lisbon, paragraph 7 amounts to a license for the politicians to have Irish Justice and Home Affairs policy, including asylum and immigration, border-controls, judicial cooperation and policing, determined by Qualified Majority Voting in the Council of Ministers. Yes I know the European Parliament will get a vote on it too, but we're a drop in the ocean there with 12 MEPs out of 785.
3. The 'guarantees' on the Commissioner are not legally-binding because they are not included in the Council decisions made in Brussels. The IIEA site acknowledges that the decisions applied to taxation, neutrality and abortion but not the Commission or workers-rights. I don't trust the politicians to keep their word on the Commissioner. Why couldn't they have included the promise of a permanent Commissioner in the European Council decisions?
4. I oppose expansion of Qualified Majority Voting, which is extended to these 50 areas under Lisbon. Granted, the number falls to 34 if you exclude the optout from Justice and Home Affairs. The problem is, as stated above, that Paragraph 7(iii) of the 28th amendment to the Constitution Bill 2009 explicitly states that the Government, with the support of the Oireachtas, may surrender Protocol 21, which allows us this optout in the first place.
5. The additional role for national-parliaments is advisory and pathetic in comparison with the growth of legislative power in the Brussels institutions, and the growth of the judicial role of the ECJ in the context of the Charter.
6.The Spanish unemployment rate of 18% suggests that the economic-dividend from voting yes is not there.
7. I partially blame the housing-crash on cheap-credit from the ECB. It gives me pause for thought on further centralisation of power in the EU institutions, which give too much weighting to the concerns of the Big States relative to the small.
8.I oppose the abolition of the rotating-presidency of the European Council in favour of a person chosen by QMV. That gives 4 Big States an absolute veto on candidates, making it unlikely Ireland will get to preside over Council business again.