Referendum on Lisbon Treaty

Elmo

Sorry if there is another thread on this topic.

So as far as I can tell most of our political representives are for this treaty.

FF/FG/PD are all cut from the same cloth so I expected that they would all want us to vote YES

Labour/The Green I thought they might think about it, well the green thought about and haven't come to any conclusions other then to allow there sentors and TD pander to FF/PD logic.

Sinn Fein well they would be againist it wouldn't they.

Will any of the indepedents campaign? Unlikely they have their seats in the Dail got.

I just think it is strange to see that in every European country that all of the leaders are for this treaty, even those in opposition. The Conservatives in Britian will even sign on the dotted line, despite their protests of not having a referendum on the Treaty.

It is strange to see that of the elected representives in the Dail only 5 will campaign againist this treaty, and yet even if the Yes side win they will only have 60% of the vote. What about the other 40% of people who vote NO, where are their representives on this treaty?

I will vote againist this treaty as I feel it is undemocratic and it continues centralise Europe. I do not need any other reasons to vote againist this treaty.

Tommy T

It's possible a very broad coalition of very different ideologies could join forces to reject the referendum.

I am a PD/FF supporter but have no interest in rubber stamping a Treaty that no one else in Europe had an oppertunity to have their say on. That doen't make me 'anti-Europe' and support Ireland's continuing membership. But you'll also have the sceptics who say we're giving up even more sovereignty to Brussels and of course there's the Bertie haters who'll jump at the chance to give the Government a bloody nose...

It will be an interesting campaign...

The_Minister

I'm not sure how I'll vote yet.
I would be default yes (I find it hard to stomach being on the same side as the Nazis, Socialists and Communists), but I'm going to give it a good read before I vote.
I would warn anyone who is thinking of voting no that most of the no campaigns are relying (as always) on lies, and misquotes. Libertas is probably the most trustworthy "No" campaign by a long shot, but I've heard criticisms of some of the things its saying too.

EDIT: Has anyone spotted the new SWP front yet?

Tommy T

The_Minister wrote: »

EDIT: Has anyone spotted the new SWP front yet?

One of the downsides of Democracy... Putting up with the obnoxious Richard Boyd Barrett pontificating...:rolleyes:

Elmo

I find it hard to stomach being on the same side as the Nazis, Socialists and Communists

Strange that but I always thought that the PDs where Nazis.

I don't think thats is such a good reason to vote YES because you don't want to be on the same side as the following. Surely if you don't beleive in something then you should vote againist even if others who are prehaps not in your line of thinking also disagree with it.

I would hate to be associated with the PDs but I am sure I agree with somethings that they have said. at some stage but don't quote me on that because I cann't give a real specific time when I did agree with them.

I hate the fact that the NO vote will be take over by the far right and left. And everyone else is afraid to vote againist it because it is undemocratic.

Putting up with the obnoxious Richard Boyd Barrett pontificating

Well at least we have shut up Micheal McDowell

I would warn anyone who is thinking of voting no that most of the no campaigns are relying (as always) on lies, and misquotes.

From what I gather some of the treaty is like that.

I think that that is a real generalisation. You could say that about anyone you disagree with, about anything.

LostinBlanch

Like I said before in a previous thread, If the last EU campaign was anything to go by, I think this is going to be a very dirty campaign. The electorate are going to come under a lot of pressure to vote yes for a treaty which is the constitution with only a few cosmetic changes to

head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary

according to Valerie Giscard D'Estaing.

Or, as he put it another way

The proposed institutional reforms, the only ones which mattered to the drafting convention, are all to be found in the Treaty of Lisbon. They have merely been ordered differently and split up between previous treaties.. . In the Treaty of Lisbon, the tools are largely the same. Only the order in which they are arranged in the tool-box has been changed. Admittedly, the box itself is an old model, which you have to rummage through in order to find what you are looking for.

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article3109877.ece

Now, if one of the architects of the Constitution comes out and says that the Lisbon treaty is the constitution with a few phrases left out of it. Don't you think that all EU citizens should get the chance to vote on it? The fact that they aren't raises huge suspicions in my mind.

We are going to get Bertie, Enda et al tell us that we have to vote yes or else. There will probably be some mutterings from some members of the commission that if we vote no, we are bad Europeans and should be thrown out of the EU. Though quite how this will happen God knows.

The Yes campaign will try and build up a No campaign figurehead such as JBB in order to bring them (and hopefully the campaign) down. Of course there will be name calling with people campaigning for a no campaign described as Nazis, Socialists and Communists and Fascists and worse I'm sure.

In saying that, I'll try and read as much of it as I can before I make up my mind. But I think this campaign is going to be a bitter one, because there is so much at stake.

LostinBlanch

Elmo wrote: »

Strange that but I always thought that the PDs where Nazis.

Elmo, much as I dislike the PDs, they aren't nazis and rising to the bait doesn't do your argument any good.

OK that's me off the soapbox for a while :rolleyes:

duggie-89

The_Minister wrote: »

I would be default yes (I find it hard to stomach being on the same side as the Nazis, Socialists and Communists), but I'm going to give it a good read before I vote.
I would warn anyone who is thinking of voting no that most of the no campaigns are relying (as always) on lies, and misquotes. Libertas is probably the most trustworthy "No" campaign by a long shot, but I've heard criticisms of some of the things its saying too.

default yes??? why would you automactiaclly vote yes?? do you not read or undersdtand what you vote for??

and i would also warn those who are thinking of voting yes are been misguided by the politicans. they are covering up its main effects. not only will ireland lose at least one MEP we will also lose a good deal of our national soverignty.

i will be voting NO and campaigning for a NO.

Tommy T

duggie-89 wrote: »

default yes??? why would you automactiaclly vote yes?? do you not read or undersdtand what you vote for??

and i would also warn those who are thinking of voting yes are been misguided by the politicans. they are covering up its main effects. not only will ireland lose at least one MEP we will also lose a good deal of our national soverignty.

i will be voting NO and campaigning for a NO.

I will be voting No. But I find it amusing to see Sinn Fein and Jean-Marie LePenn united in a common cause.

Will Caoimhin and J-M share a platform prior to the vote..;)

Seriously though like all other EU referenda this will be mainly ignored by the People and conversely thats the No campaign's best chance...

oscarBravo

duggie-89 wrote: »

not only will ireland lose at least one MEP we will also lose a good deal of our national soverignty.

Please explain how.

Elmo

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/cg00001re01en.pdf

This is a draft treaty. Are we only voting on the draft treaty or can some boby point us in the direct of the actual treaty. Also what is the Treaty of the Fuction of the EU? We seem to be voting for that as well.

Kaiser_Sma

Could someone try to explain to me how this treaty is undemocratic? Obviously the lack of referendum around europe is not directly democratic, but it's still decided by elected representatives.
The real reason this hasn't gone to referendum is because (as polls have shown) there is a vast amount of apathy towards european affairs and in particular this treaty. If it does go to referendum everywhere it will only be the very opposed who will vote, and they represent a tiny minority of voters at present.

The treaty itself if anything increases the democratic nature of the EU by making the directly elected european parliment as powerful as the european council. There are enough stipulations in the treaty to prevent it from completly superseeding a national veto.
It will also allow the EU to make diplomatic relations on it's own providing that they do not interfere with individual foreign policies.
The affirmation of fundemental rights and tougher restrictions on entry are reason alone to vote for this.

Tommy T

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

Could someone try to explain to me how this treaty is undemocratic? Obviously the lack of referendum around europe is not directly democratic, but it's still decided by elected representatives.

some countries never use referenda in passing Eu treaties but others like Denmark, Holland and France have decided the People cannot be trusted to exercise their Right as before.

For this arrogance alone the Treaty deserves to be defeated...

Kaiser_Sma

Would you have a referendum on everything the government passes?
The level of apathy is far to high to make this a worth while referendum, Especially when the majority of people are voting based on the lack of previous referendums or the lack of referendum in other countries. If you can't vote on the actual subject of the referendum, then you shouldn't be voting at all.

Elmo

Would you have a referendum on everything the government passes?
The level of apathy is far to high to make this a worth while referendum, Especially when the majority of people are voting based on the lack of previous referendums or the lack of referendum in other countries. If you can't vote on the actual subject of the referendum, then you shouldn't be voting at all.

One of the major problems here is that we have a group of representives who totally agree and continue to make agreement without asking the people what they think.

There are many people who are againist aspects of the EU and their voices aren't heard, because parliments across europe have very few TD/MP who are anti-europe.

The level of apathy is far to high to make this a worth while referendum, Especially when the majority of people are voting based on the lack of previous referendums or the lack of referendum in other countries. If you can't vote on the actual subject of the referendum, then you shouldn't be voting at all.

60% of people vote in the 2nd Nice Ref.

35% in the first but they where also asked about 2 other specific changes to the Consitution and they still didn't turn out for those specfic changes. (Removal of the Death Penalty and the Council of Rome).

Lack of referendums in other countries isn't a reason. Just because countries don't wish to take a referendum. Perhaps you shouldn't vote since the other countries won't be voting.

Apathy is not a reason not to vote. You could say the same about all elections if people don't want to vote its their right but to have that right you must give them the right to vote first.

The_Minister

Elmo wrote: »

Strange that but I always thought that the PDs where Nazis.

The Progressive Democrats are not Nazi's. Look at the name. They are a Liberal (not libertarian) party, whose core founding principles were
1) A Free Democratic Society
2) Individual Freedom Promoting Social Justice
3) Minimum State Interference
4) Citizens Rights Balanced By Citizens Responsibilities
5) Pro-Free Market, Pro-Competition, Pro-Regional Development
6) Progressive Taxation To Promote Work
7) Decent Standard Of Living For All
8)Independent, Transparent & Accountable Government
9) Pro-Environmental Sustainability
10) Pro-Irish Unity
11) Separation Of Church & State
12) Supporting Community Development & Voluntary Work
13) Protect & Promote Irish Culture
14) Promote A Liberal EU

That is not a nazi party. You may disagree with the PDs, but they have done more to reduce the power of the state than any other party. Nazi's favour a strong state.

Elmo wrote: »

I don't think thats is such a good reason to vote YES because you don't want to be on the same side as the following. Surely if you don't beleive in something then you should vote againist even if others who are prehaps not in your line of thinking also disagree with it.

I said that that will influence my starting point. I am fully open to voting no if I think the treaty is the wrong thing.

Tommy T

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

Would you have a referendum on everything the government passes?
The level of apathy is far to high to make this a worth while referendum, Especially when the majority of people are voting based on the lack of previous referendums or the lack of referendum in other countries. If you can't vote on the actual subject of the referendum, then you shouldn't be voting at all.

In this Constitutional Democracy we are free to vote on the issue at hand for any reason we like.

As a Constitutional democracy we have a Right to vote on any issue that fundamentally changes our Constitutional status.

I, for one, do not see the need to change the workings of the EU as it's currently constituted and have my heckles raised when politicians and Eurocrats try to steamroll this Treaty though Parliamants rather than give a voice to the People. The UK being a prime example.

I'll be voting No and hope that we have a low turnout as the less vote the more likely it will be rejected...

Elmo

The Progressive Democrats are not Nazi's. Look at the name. They are a Liberal (not libertarian) party, whose core founding principles were

LOL and LostinBlanch thought I was rising to the bait.

1) A Free Democratic Society
2) Individual Freedom Promoting Social Justice
3) Minimum State Interference
4) Citizens Rights Balanced By Citizens Responsibilities
5) Pro-Free Market, Pro-Competition, Pro-Regional Development
6) Progressive Taxation To Promote Work
7) Decent Standard Of Living For All
8)Independent, Transparent & Accountable Government
9) Pro-Environmental Sustainability
10) Pro-Irish Unity
11) Separation Of Church & State
12) Supporting Community Development & Voluntary Work
13) Protect & Promote Irish Culture
14) Promote A Liberal EU

LOL

Neo-liberal overtly conservative IMO.

10) Pro-Irish Unity

Comedians as well.

Totally of the topic, I won't get into this with The Minister, we would just be back where we started.

A rose by another name Minister.

Kaiser_Sma

Tommy T wrote: »

In this Constitutional Democracy we are free to vote on the issue at hand for any reason we like.

Of course you are, but i'd like to think people would be responsible enough to vote for the nature of the issue at hand.

As a Constitutional democracy we have a Right to vote on any issue that fundamentally changes our Constitutional status.

I'm not quite sure how this alters our constitution. Could you clarify for me?

]I, for one, do not see the need to change the workings of the EU as it's currently constituted and have my heckles raised when politicians and Eurocrats try to steamroll this Treaty though Parliamants rather than give a voice to the People. The UK being a prime example.

This isn't steam rolling, this is the second time they have tried to get the constitution put through. This time it is heavily altered to amend previous problems with the consitution, even so far as to remove all nationalised terminology including sugesting that it is a constitution.

Your parliments dials and diets are all consituted of your representatives. It is not subverting democracy by leaving it up to them, alot of them were even voted in based on their policies and views towards europe. This treaty does nothing but make the EU a more effective democratic entity and does not enfringe on your national powers anymore then making it illeagal for your country to abuse human rights.

I'll be voting No and hope that we have a low turnout as the less vote the more likely it will be rejected...

Well unfortunantly you'll probably get your wish. The EU has the oppertunity, if not now then in the future to be a model for international symbiosis and cooperation around the world. Unfortunantly it is regularly impeded for the sake of it.

Tommy T

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

Of course you are, but i'd like to think people would be responsible enough to vote for the nature of the issue at hand.



I'm not quite sure how this alters our constitution. Could you clarify for me?



This isn't steam rolling, this is the second time they have tried to get the constitution put through. This time it is heavily altered to amend previous problems with the consitution, even so far as to remove all nationalised terminology including sugesting that it is a constitution.

Your parliments dials and diets are all consituted of your representatives. It is not subverting democracy by leaving it up to them, alot of them were even voted in based on their policies and views towards europe. This treaty does nothing but make the EU a more effective democratic entity and does not enfringe on your national powers anymore then making it illeagal for your country to abuse human rights.



Well unfortunantly you'll probably get your wish. The EU has the oppertunity, if not now then in the future to be a model for international symbiosis and cooperation around the world. Unfortunantly it is regularly impeded for the sake of it.

Every Referendum from the formation of the State has been due to an Amendment to our Constitution. Therefore its a given that because we're having a Referendum this time its because it will alter our current Constitution.

The Politicians know that one or other of the countries would reject this in a referendum therefore are ignoring the People and pulling a fast one through the parliaments. The UK promised a referendum on the Treaty but have reneged on that promise. Check out the Commons debate yesterday...

The sky won't fall in if we vote No and I couldn't give a toss if Dick Roche has to face the Eurocrats after our No vote and they give him stick.

Message to Dick: if it gets too much for you I'll take your place and proudly defend the deomcratc voice on my People...!

jmayo

Tommy T wrote: »

In this Constitutional Democracy we are free to vote on the issue at hand for any reason we like.

As a Constitutional democracy we have a Right to vote on any issue that fundamentally changes our Constitutional status.

I, for one, do not see the need to change the workings of the EU as it's currently constituted and have my heckles raised when politicians and Eurocrats try to steamroll this Treaty though Parliamants rather than give a voice to the People. The UK being a prime example.

I'll be voting No and hope that we have a low turnout as the less vote the more likely it will be rejected...

OMG I actaully agree with Tommy for once

Why are we trying to change the EU into some United Sates of Europe which will enevitably be run by the bigger players.
Yes, there have been great strides made down the years by Brussels/Strasbourg which have helped transform the member countries, but why are we trying to create an artifical state to match US.
I have no problem with developing the newest members but why do we have to add yet more members. It is getting almost like a pyramid scheme and the more diverse states we have the more issues and problems.

No matter how some people talk up our importance we are only 4 odd million out of almost half a billion.

Also on lighter note just look how the once venerable Eurovision was hijacked by the former Soviet block, will the same happen to the EU ?

The_Minister wrote: »

The Progressive Democrats are not Nazi's. Look at the name. They are a Liberal (not libertarian) party, whose core founding principles were

8)Independent, Transparent & Accountable Government

They can strike that one out ....

CerebralCortex

Tommy T wrote: »

.... and of course there's the Bertie haters who'll jump at the chance to give the Government a bloody nose......

Are you lookin for a fight?

I'll be voting against it too OP. Not because I hate Bertie but for the same reasons in your original post.

Moriarty

Anyone who bases their vote in a referendum on anything other than the issues proposed by the referendum does not deserve a vote. Irresponsible childishness is not to be encouraged.

Manic Moran

Tommy T wrote: »

some countries never use referenda in passing Eu treaties but others like Denmark, Holland and France have decided the People cannot be trusted to exercise their Right as before.

Is that not an issue for the good denizens of Denmark, Holland and France to sort out, as opposed to foreigners? Had they any serious objections in this instance, I'm sure they might have seen fit to advise their elected representatives of their concerns, on pain of not being re-elected.

NTM

Elmo

Is that not an issue for the good denizens of Denmark, Holland and France to sort out, as opposed to foreigners? Had they any serious objections in this instance, I'm sure they might have seen fit to advise their elected representatives of their concerns, on pain of not being re-elected.

Both Holland and France rejected the Constitution, this is the reason for the reform treaty. And the reason for them not to bring the reform treaty to their public.

Politicans don't need to worry about the consequence of their actions for example FF really shouldn't have won the last election but they did.

Anyone who bases their vote in a referendum on anything other than the issues proposed by the referendum does not deserve a vote. Irresponsible childishness is not to be encouraged.

I am voting againist it because I beleive it to be Anti-democratic.
Un-elected Commissioners, unelected Presidents etc. <<<< the current crowd are the same but the treaty doesn't go to change these democratic problems with in the EU.

oscarBravo

Elmo wrote: »

I am voting againist it because I beleive it to be Anti-democratic.
Un-elected Commissioners, unelected Presidents etc. <<<< the current crowd are the same but the treaty doesn't go to change these democratic problems with in the EU.

So basically you're voting against a reform treaty because it doesn't reform enough?

The_Minister

Elmo wrote: »

I am voting againist it because I beleive it to be Anti-democratic.
Un-elected Commissioners, unelected Presidents etc. <<<< the current crowd are the same but the treaty doesn't go to change these democratic problems with in the EU.

In a democratic Europe we would be marginalised and side-lined, as a tiny country with a tiny population. We would get no say in anything about anything, as opposed to now, where at the very least, our democratically-elected representatives can defend us.

jmayo

Elmo wrote: »

Both Holland and France rejected the Constitution, this is the reason for the reform treaty. And the reason for them not to bring the reform treaty to their public.

Politicans don't need to worry about the consequence of their actions for example FF really shouldn't have won the last election but they did.



I am voting againist it because I beleive it to be Anti-democratic.
Un-elected Commissioners, unelected Presidents etc. <<<< the current crowd are the same but the treaty doesn't go to change these democratic problems with in the EU.

But how can you have democratically elected commisioners ?
Do you want to relace them with an actual EU government that is elected by the people directly ?
If so, do you base it on the political groupings within the European parliament or would you then be moving towards cross border political parties ?
Only real one I guess would be Greens but look at ours :rolleyes:

Should we go with an elected EU president, ala the US, who then decides on a cabinet and then this replaces the Commissioners ?
Of course the cabinet decisions would have to be rubber stamped by the EU parliament rather than the elected governments of sovereign states.
Then we go with federal Europe and the nations are equivalent to US states which I believe is the ultimate aim of some of our European policiticans.

I am just throwing these ideas out there to see what people think.

duggie-89

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

Would you have a referendum on everything the government passes?
(quote]

well they should if it will have a founding impact on a topic such as europe. as europe is to important to take lightly.

Kaiser_Sma

jmayo wrote: »

OMG I actaully agree with Tommy for once

Why are we trying to change the EU into some United Sates of Europe which will enevitably be run by the bigger players.
Yes, there have been great strides made down the years by Brussels/Strasbourg which have helped transform the member countries, but why are we trying to create an artifical state to match US.
I have no problem with developing the newest members but why do we have to add yet more members. It is getting almost like a pyramid scheme and the more diverse states we have the more issues and problems.

No matter how some people talk up our importance we are only 4 odd million out of almost half a billion.

Also on lighter note just look how the once venerable Eurovision was hijacked by the former Soviet block, will the same happen to the EU ?

This isn't really about creating a united states of europe or necisarily creating a rival to the US, it's about creating a succesfull model for cooperative government. It will not continue to improve if we continue to delay actions based on squabbles with our own governments.
The insular nature of nation states since the world wars has created now disparity and termoil in the world, yet people still have this nationalistic concept of seperating themselves from others inorder to preserve their nature.
This us and them division is exactly why we can't make any progress to tackling broad liberal issues like world hunger, human rights, disease control, poverty, global warming, war and peak oil. Right now the only way to fix a country is to plow in there under false or dubious pretences and start from scratch.
Entities like the EU run across many problems as they absorb different states, but the good it's done, even with it's embryonic democracy in terms of development and regulation is being expressed everywhere.

Elmo

But how can you have democratically elected commisioners ?

Each country would have a commissioner who they would elected at the european elections.

Of the 28 commissioner one would become the President in a european wide election.

Not all 28 commissioners would brought to the European public for election, rather within their groupings the MEPs would vote for whom they see as fit go up for election for their group. An independent Commissioner would need to have the support of a number of MEPs to go for the presidency or the support of their National Parliment. (National parliments would only be able to support Independent Candidates to avoid any national pride that might go into electing a person to run for the presidency).

The workings of the EU would remain the same (unless a new treaty is signed and voted upon by ALL* European Citizens) but the Commissioners and President would be elected by the people for the people.

*If you want to vote, but that choice should be given to ALL citizen over the age of 18.

Tommy T

Moriarty wrote: »

Anyone who bases their vote in a referendum on anything other than the issues proposed by the referendum does not deserve a vote. Irresponsible childishness is not to be encouraged.

Whats the view like from the moral high ground...?

Thankfully the Nanny State a la Moriarty holds no writ in my voting constituency...

ashyle

Firstly, I'm not an idiot and I read the papers everyday. How is it that I cannot understand a word of what the European union site says about this treaty??

Can someone explain it in a nutshell??

Victor

Broken link

http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/take/index_en.htm

eoin5

I'd like to decipher it too but i'm only human. I think its about making the EU a more singular figure on the world stage. I wonder if it means anything to the vetoing strength a collective europe may have.

Saruman

Not even going to attempt to read it all. I for one though am pro Europe. I will be voting yes. I would like to see an EU superstate, similar to how the US works. A central/federal government but each state has its own local government and laws.
Obviously i would assume the European system would work a little better than the US.

The main argument the opposition has is that it will force us into a European army which is not true according to the Q&A

walrusgumble

Saruman wrote: »

Not even going to attempt to read it all. I for one though am pro Europe. I will be voting yes. I would like to see an EU superstate, similar to how the US works. A central/federal government but each state has its own local government and laws.
Obviously i would assume the European system would work a little better than the US.

The main argument the opposition has is that it will force us into a European army which is not true according to the Q&A

not going to read it? fair enough won't argue

i don't believe we will be "forced" into a european army. the will and always have been opt out clauses available as with the justice and immigration side of things. touch wood that will continue.

but, in light of your opinion, the difference between the us and an european state is that in the us senate & congress, each us state, regardless of size and population has a equal vote. why make it so complicated and unfair (for smaller eu states) by not giving each other the same quota?

do you not think ireland should have an equal say in europe as the others? will loosing a commissioner and european parliament seat not effect us?, do you trust the institutions that have not been able to agree with the court of auditors books? who can a member state enjoy independence in making its own laws when the union wants to transfer competence in new areas. like the idea of europe having a say on our taxing? would you like europe telling us whether or not we can apply 12.5% corporation tax?


what ever happens, hopefully govenments start encouraging people to get out more and vote in the european parliament elections because the turn out do be brutal. more needs to be done to educate people as to the importance of the institutions

Saruman

walrusgumble wrote: »

not going to read it? fair enough won't argue

I did not say i was not going to read it, i meant i was not going to read it all! Way too much info.


The same people who vote no to this, are probably the same people who moan about rip off Ireland and how much better things are in the rest of Europe and how we should be more like them.

walrusgumble

Saruman wrote: »

I did not say i was not going to read it, i meant i was not going to read it all! Way too much info.


The same people who vote no to this, are probably the same people who moan about rip off Ireland and how much better things are in the rest of Europe and how we should be more like them.

who are these same people, as a matter of interest that say we should be more like them? granted our european neighbours have alot of good ideas but as for the rip off, well i am not an economics expert or have any real and competent knowledge to be one, but the "rip off ireland" tag is our own fault, with higher wage expectencies etc and better economy than the previous 20 years which resulted in ireland been cheap labour etc at start of boom? (a title which fine gael first used years ago with ther website to slag off fianna fail)

i doubt its just the no vote people who moan about that.


out of interest, if anyone can answer this, what has the fundamental charter of human rights got that the european convention of human rights not? why is there a need for a new charter? (not saying that is a bad thing, on the contary)

IRLConor

walrusgumble wrote: »

the difference between the us and an european state is that in the us senate & congress, each us state, regardless of size and population has a equal vote. why make it so complicated and unfair (for smaller eu states) by not giving each other the same quota?

The US House of Representatives is divided proportional to the population of each state. The US Senate is 2 senators per state.

I must read the Treaty but before I have to vote on it.

Moriarty

Threads merged.

purple'n'gold

“The main argument the opposition has is that it will force us into a European army which is not true according to the Q&A”

If we are part of a federal Europe surely we should be obliged to defend it? Or are we still going to be hamstrung with this ridiculous treble lock nonsense?

SeanW

I intend to get a look over the Lisbon treaty before deciding. But I don't think I will be voting for it.

I'm not normally a Euro-sceptic, but because the way these European things seem to go - have a referendum and if we don't like the result, keep holding new referenda until we get the "right" result.

Nice had to go to our electorate twice for this reason. The European Constitution was already defeated in the only two countries that had referenda, France and Holland.

This time around, Ireland is the only country that will vote on the EU Constitution-lite. This raises my suspicions that the treaty is somehow being rammed through, and causes me to be cautious.

walrusgumble

SeanW wrote: »

I intend to get a look over the Lisbon treaty before deciding. But I don't think I will be voting for it.

I'm not normally a Euro-sceptic, but because the way these European things seem to go - have a referendum and if we don't like the result, keep holding new referenda until we get the "right" result.

Nice had to go to our electorate twice for this reason. The European Constitution was already defeated in the only two countries that had referenda, France and Holland.

This time around, Ireland is the only country that will vote on the EU Constitution-lite. This raises my suspicions that the treaty is somehow being rammed through, and causes me to be cautious.

the issue about france and holland, i ask, if we had the referendum on the same day as those countries, and had voted by reading the constituion without considering what the other countries thought, what might have the outcome have been?, considering, ireland (politicans) have always or nearly been the good little european who always said yes when voting (not great at implementing the regulations/directive in a timely fashion though). the eurobarometers would suggest we as a country less eurosceptic (normally place around 2nd after luxembourg) than countries such as france or the uk (did uk even bother with referendums in the past in relation to europe, bar 1973ish?)

also consider that with the fact that much of the voting rights/allocation of seats etc was agreed in the amsterdam (badly, hene need for nice) and the nice treaty (were we really victims of scaremongering at second ref or did gov badly misinformed us at sec ref?)

without stating the obvious, i will be looking exclusively at what is a good deal for ireland.

gurramok

"EU wrote:

The standard system of voting in the Council of Ministers will be “Qualified majority voting” (QMV). It will be based on the principle of the double majority. Decisions in the Council of Ministers will need the support of 55% of Member States (currently 15 out of 27 EU countries) representing a minimum of 65% of the EU's population. To make it impossible for a very small number of the most populous Member States to prevent a decision from being adopted, a blocking minority must comprise at least four Member States; otherwise, the qualified majority will be deemed to have been reached even if the population criterion is not met.

So there you have it, small countries are screwed unless we find 3 allies!

OTK

What are the options for Ireland?
a) Ratify treaty - gradually continue along path of european integration
b) Reject treaty - leave the EU and operate as a member of the EEA like Norway.

I can't see 495 million people waiting for us to change our minds should we reject the treaty.

So am I right is this vote just a vote to see whether we want to remain full members of the EU or not?

N8

I personally see this treaty as another example of contempt from the political elite of Ireland and Europe.

They have some cheek to re-present a European Constitution and rename it instead 'The Lisbon Treaty' after it was rejected by Holland and France and crashed, and the rules changed now that those same countries cannot vote now. The UK despite being promised a referendum it seems won’t get one.

Those that have voted (Malta) have been bribed with both aid and increased representation. A representation that is to be significantly reduced for us with this re-presented constitutional treaty.

The Lisbon Treaty will cut our voting strength on the European Council by more than half and will end our automatic right to a Commissioner.

Bar bribed Malta, we are the only country to be permitted to vote away our nationalities and our voting power in Europe, and we are being advised by our politicians to do so.

It gives the EU too much power and reduces our ability to stop decisions that are not in Ireland's interests. EU laws and agenda will take precedence.

Worse still the politicians here have decided to remove informing the Irish public by way of the referendum commission.

Me personally I am tired of being f*cked by politicians in this country.

Elmo

So am I right is this vote just a vote to see whether we want to remain full members of the EU or not?
Today 00:15

That is just scaremongering.

A No vote is to veto this treaty, to change the terms to ones that are more suitable to the people of Europe.

LostinBlanch

N8,

I agree with much of your post.

I see that a number of public figures have called for the referendum commission to start work immediately, in a letter in todays Examiner.
http://www.examiner.ie/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg=ireland-qqqm=ireland-qqqa=ireland-qqqid=53896-qqqx=1.asp

Let the Referendum Commission give us all the EU treaty facts and keep powerful lobbies well out of it

THE eyes of Europe and much of the world will be on Ireland when we vote on the new EU treaty — the Treaty of Lisbon — and particularly as it now seems we will be the only member state to have a referendum on it.


That is why we urge the Government to call the Referendum Commission into being some months in advance of the referendum so as to give it adequate time and resources to carry out its statutory function of informing citizens what the referendum is about and encouraging maximum turnout of voters.

We do this even though we ourselves have diverse views on the contents of the treaty. The establishment of the Referendum Commission under the 1998 Referendum Act was a progressive development in Irish public policy.

Although the function of setting out the Yes and No arguments in referendums was removed from the commission in 2001, its function of telling citizens what the referendum is about and encouraging them to vote is still hugely important.

We are confident that the commission will provide truthful, objective and non-partisan information to citizens if it is given enough time and resources to do this by the Government and Oireachtas and is not faced with the task of publicising multiple referendum propositions simultaneously, as has occurred on occasion in the past.

The commission should have a central role in the EU treaty referendum if European and world opinion is to regard our referendum arrangements as enlightened and democratic.

The Referendum Commission consists of the ombudsman, the comptroller and auditor general, the clerk of the Dail, the clerk of the Seanad and a chairman nominated by the Government from among the senior members of the judiciary.

Its five members will need time themselves to get on top of this complex and many-sided treaty before they set about the job of informing the public of its contents and the implications of ratifying it for Ireland and our constitution.

In the commission’s reports on previous constitutional referenda, its chairman, former Chief Justice TA Finlay, was implicitly critical of governments of the day for failing to give the commission enough time to do its job effectively. That must not happen on this occasion.

We hope that the media and all our political parties, whatever their views on the treaty, will support this call.

Other aspects of a democratic referendum are fair coverage for the arguments of both sides by the media, the avoidance of abuse and personal attacks on the proponents of either side and non-interference from outside the country by powerful interested parties with huge financial resources at their disposal such as the EU Commission and well-endowed foreign supporters of either the Yes or No sides.

We also believe that the Government should make the text of the treaty easily available to those citizens who wish to obtain it, as well as the text of the consolidated European treaties which it amends.

Darina Allen
Robert Ballagh
Gay Byrne
James and Therese Gorry
Declan Kiberd
Frank Keoghan
Pat McCabe
Rev Terence McCaughey
Muiris MacCongail
Finian McGrath TD
Patricia McKenna
Tony MacMahon
Christy Moore
Dervla Murphy
Prof John A Murphy
Senator David Norris
Emmett O’Connell
Jer O’Leary
Bob Quinn
Senator Fergal Quinn
Ruairi Quinn TD
Adi Roche
Dr Andy Storey
Bishop William Walsh

Of course having the referendum commission start work straight away would mean that they would have to make all the information requested above public. Never mind the fact that it would stop such scaremongering rubbish such as we'll have to leave the EU if we vote no.

OTK

Elmo wrote: »

That is just scaremongering.

A No vote is to veto this treaty, to change the terms to ones that are more suitable to the people of Europe.

Are you suggesting that in the event that Ireland rejects the treaty, Europe will renegotiate the terms to give everyone a better deal?

99% of the people of Europe will have the treaty ratified on their behalf by their parliaments. Is our decision of any interest to them? The last attempt to ratify the constitution only stopped because France and the Netherlands rejected it in referenda. The UK would likely have also rejected the constitution in their planned referendum

This time around the same constitution has been repackaged as a treaty. No referenda are planned apart from ours.

Elmo

Are you suggesting that in the event that Ireland rejects the treaty, Europe will renegotiate the terms to give everyone a better deal?

99% of the people of Europe will have the treaty ratified on their behalf by their parliaments. Is our decision of any interest to them? The last attempt to ratify the constitution only stopped because France and the Netherlands rejected it in referenda. The UK would likely have also rejected the constitution in their planned referendum

This time around the same constitution has been repackaged as a treaty. No referenda are planned apart from ours.

Some of the views such as the terms of Irish Neutrailty where changed in the Nice. Terms can be changed. However the government did not fight our strongly enough for other terms to be changed, in Nice.

There own parliaments decisions are of interest to them, and they should be more involve.

Just because we are a small country doesn't mean we aren't strong in Europe.

Some of the leaders of Europe have stated that they would not be able to carry such a referendum on the Nice treaty. Which shows that they have their own reservations.