Why are YOU voting no ?

jmayo

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

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

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

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

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

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"

jmayo

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

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.