Which way will you vote (if at all)

Bacchus

Red Alert wrote: »

I accidentally clicked yes, although I'm a no.

I think you're legally obliged to vote yes now on Thursday.

molloyjh

Bacchus wrote: »

My first post on the Lisbon treaty. Totally agree with the above. Both sides have been scaremongering and I think it's a shame. Why can't they trust to public to listen to the facts and make up their own minds instead of coming out with the likes of "Vote Yes or Europe will get pissy with us" and "Vote No because they took yer commissioner!!"

I'm voting yes because there are positives to the treaty and the No campaign has not convinced me that the cons are really that bad at all (Commissioner, neutrality, tax, voting power etc). We've got equality in this treaty as far as I'm concerned which is all I want. Sure, people say we've lost voting power and commissioner for 5 years but there are a lot of countries in the EU, what gives us the right to have the biggest piece of the pie. We're all in the same boat, we've got (in my eyes) a fair system in place and we've got vetos in the important areas.

The only grey area for me is the whole tax thing. I don't actually understand it very well.

Having read further on this there are 2 ways in which the EU could potentially implement this CCCTB thing.

1. Propose it and get unanimous agreement from all member states. This is highly unlikely to happen given that we oppose it along with the UK, Estonia, Slovakia and Lithuania. At least 1 of us will use our veto, which is all that is needed.

2. Propose to modify the policy area from unanimity to QMV so as to avoid the possibility of a veto. This requires unanimity also though so one of the 5 above will inevitably block this change.

Our taxation policies are safe so long as one member state either blocks any legislation or blocks any shift from unanimity.

thebaldsoprano

oscarBravo wrote: »

Brilliant. Now go and find the corresponding section in the Constitution, prior to the proposed amendment, and tell me how it differs in substance.

Ehm, given that I've gone to a little trouble to find the text to support my arguments, how about you show a little courtesy and do the same?

I thought the idea here is to debate things, not to issue orders, maybe I'm mistaken.

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a completely different thing.

Arguably true, but the net effect is the same, the politicians get to pass laws contrary to our constitution without asking the electorate and having a referendum.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The EU has primacy over national constitutions. That's true of all member states, and it has been true for us since 1973.

Really, then why have we been having referendums over the different treaties they've been passing since then, including this one on Thursday.
It's quite unlikely that our politicians are just being nice by giving us a chance to vote on this if they don't have to.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I do. It's in perfectly clear English (taken in context). With respect, perhaps that reflects more on your comprehension skills than on the language used. It's an amending treaty. If you want to know the effect of what you've quoted, you look up the relevant treaties and apply the changes.

Good for you that you've done some research, understand the issues at hand and are voting on that rather than the propaganda that's doing the rounds. I really respect that.

As for the rest of what you say here, it'd be useful if you'd refrain from ad hominem [1]. I'm just an ordinary voter with no political or legal training trying to make sense of the matters at hand and obviously not wanting to vote in something I don't understand. There're plenty of other people in my shoes.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Alternatively, you could read the consolidated version that has been published, showing the effect of the changes - all the hard work done for you.

Afaik, we're not voting on the consolidated version.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Better yet, you could look up the wealth of information that's been published about the treaty by the Referendum Commission and other bodies.

We're not voting on this either and a lot of published information on this is of questionable objectivity and clarity.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Again, with all due respect, if you think a psychiatrist is the right person to interpret a legal document, you need to do a lot more research before you can cast an informed vote.

Ad hominem again... Just to clear things up I was just using an analogy, last time I checked Michael Jackson wasn't a legal document, maybe he is these days after his latest round of surgery

oscarBravo wrote: »

In other words, you can't refute anything he's said.

My good God, with due respect, this is a little arrogant...

I wasn't planning to refute anything he said, just have issue with the fact that it's recycled propaganda. It's with what he didn't say that I've got a problem.

1. Ad hominem, Latin for argument against the person.
This is basically the practice of attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument they're making.
Considered weak debating practice and bad form.

S.I.R

vote yes because everyones voting no.

cailin_donn

I'd vote no, if I could, stupid age requirements *shakes fist angrily*

hmm could that be seen as ageist?

Hermy

I will be voting No in this referendum in support of the French and Dutch voters who resoundingly rejected this Treaty under the guise of the E.U. Constitution, and in support of the countless millions across the rest of Europe who were not afforded the right to vote Yay or Nay on such a crucial matter for the fututre of Europe.

thebaldsoprano

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Ehm, given that I've gone to a little trouble to find the text to support my arguments, how about you show a little courtesy and do the same?

You were asked to provide text actually and you didn't why was that?

I thought the idea here is to debate things, not to issue orders, maybe I'm mistaken.

Again you were asked to support your arguments-OB does when asked.

Arguably true, but the net effect is the same, the politicians get to pass laws contrary to our constitution without asking the electorate and having a referendum.

Lol theres an inherent contradiction there.
You cannot pass a law either in Europe or here that covers Ireland if it conflicts with Bunracht na hEireann.
Thats why we have referenda.

Really, then why have we been having referendums over the different treaties they've been passing since then, including this one on Thursday.
It's quite unlikely that our politicians are just being nice by giving us a chance to vote on this if they don't have to.

All Previous treaties have already been passed via referendum so they aren't in question here.

Good for you that you've done some research, understand the issues at hand and are voting on that rather than the propaganda that's doing the rounds. I really respect that.

As for the rest of what you say here, it'd be useful if you'd refrain from ad hominem [1]. I'm just an ordinary voter with no political or legal training trying to make sense of the matters at hand and obviously not wanting to vote in something I don't understand. There're plenty of other people in my shoes.

I'd advise doing a search of scofflaws posts and read the last couple of hundred of them.
That won't take too long and it will give you a feel for how unfounded a lot of the No campaign points are.


If you still want to vote no after that exercise,I'll be baffled to be honest.

Hermy

Hermy wrote: »

I will be voting No in this referendum in support of the French and Dutch voters who resoundingly rejected this Treaty under the guise of the E.U. Constitution, and in support of the countless millions across the rest of Europe who were not afforded the right to vote Yay or Nay on such a crucial matter for the fututre of Europe.

I see.
Could you explain then why french voters brought in a new right wing government after that referendum by a landslide on a mandate to impliment the improved version?

Hermy

I have absolutely no idea why the French, or indeed anyone else, votes one way or the other but I would like to see people being given the opportunity to vote.

But they were and they voted in sarkosi who is in favour of the new treaty.

grames_bond

‘In Article 122(2) the second sentence shall become the first subparagraph of Article 117a(2); it shall be amended as set out above in point 102.’

ah ye thats totally clear in every way, how can we say no?! :rolleyes: VERY EASILY! a treaty that cannot be read is trying to hide something (patriot act anyone?!)

and do you want to know why the main Irish partied are campaigning for a yes vote? if the treaty is ratified then these parties (which ever one is in power) will have the same salary, the same benifits, the same holidays, the same everything except LESS accountability! they can pass the buck on any area in which the people are not happy with and blame the EU!

and gimme a break on the "ireland still has a veto on taxation" bull, anyone heard of political lobbying? other countries could easily use their superior voting powers on other areas to vote against ireland and force us to back down on our taxation stance...one taoiseach, one MEP will buckle sooner or later, its inevitable!

If europe aint broke, don't try fix it!! vote no

sink

pouffie is spamming, so far he has posted that article verbatim in three threads. He needs to be banned.

Hermy

Deleted User wrote: »

But they were and they voted in sarkosi who is in favour of the new treaty.

Sarkosi may be in favour of the Treaty but he is but one individual. I would have preferred that all member states had a referendum on this hugely important issue rather than just us Irish voting on behalf of the four or five hundred million others who don't get to have their say.

Scofflaw

Hermy wrote: »

Sarkosi may be in favour of the Treaty but he is but one individual. I would have preferred that all member states had a referendum on this hugely important issue rather than just us Irish voting on behalf of the four or five hundred million others who don't get to have their say.

The argument might have some validity if the rest of Europe all had referendums written into law as a way of ratifying treaties, and were sidestepping them this time - however, only us and the Danes normally use referendums for EU treaties. Everybody else normally uses parliamentary ratification, and are doing so this time.

If you strongly feel that the other European countries ought to use referendums to ratify treaties, as opposed to whatever they have decided themselves, I would suggest you add your weight to the pro-referendum campaign (their "EU-wide protests" can be seen here).

cordially,
Scofflaw

penguinbars

Are people honestly considering voting yes to support an organisation that claims it is introducing the treaty to make itself more efficient...when an independant body in London completed a study which showed that the EU has never been more efficient....

You talk about lies from both sides in Ireland-which i cannot deny-....but how about lies coming from the people we're about to give an enormous amount of power to,if it's passed??

thebaldsoprano

Deleted User wrote: »

You were asked to provide text actually and you didn't why was that?

"Brilliant. Now go and find the corresponding section in the Constitution, prior to the proposed amendment, and tell me how it differs in substance."

'Now go', this is in the imperative, which suggests a command or order, not a question, to say nothing over the overall tone...

Anyways, things are really deteriorating if this kind of subtle tense manipulation is going on, I'll take your advice re scofflaw's posts and say bye bye for now.

Hermy

I understand that not all countries traditionally have referenda but perhaps in keeping with the supposed democratic ideals of the E.U. an exception should have been made in this case. There is a lot of debate on the whole issue of voting rights and here we [the Irish] are, deciding on the Treaty for the rest of Europe.

molloyjh

penguinbars wrote: »

Are people honestly considering voting yes to support an organisation that claims it is introducing the treaty to make itself more efficient...when an independant body in London completed a study which showed that the EU has never been more efficient....

You talk about lies from both sides in Ireland-which i cannot deny-....but how about lies coming from the people we're about to give an enormous amount of power to,if it's passed??

They are not going to get an "enormous amount of power". In fact National Parliaments are going to be more involved than ever in policy decisions and the Citizens Initiative is giving the people of the EU the power to raise issues that they feel are important. The guts of the changes are in how the EU operates, not the areas in which it does. And just because something is more efficient than ever doesn't for a single second mean it can't be better. Thats like saying to a 10 year old child that they are as tall as they ever have been so they can't get any taller.

Khannie

Hermy wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea why the French, or indeed anyone else, votes one way or the other but I would like to see people being given the opportunity to vote.

At what point does this opportunity to vote become over the top? We elect public representatives to make decisions on our behalf all the time because (frankly) it would be too much of a pain in the hole to make all those decisions ourselves.

I'm not saying people shouldn't have the right to vote on Lisbon, only that it's not necessarily a bad thing that they didn't. As others have pointed out, the only political parties urging a no vote are the usual group of shinners, fringe groups and loopers (who never seem to urge a vote on anything that agrees with the major parties).

Irish and Proud

molloyjh wrote: »

What exact elements do you think we could get improved for Ireland? We already have opt outs on the most important policy areas going from unanimity to QMV and we still have the veto on the remaining major issues. Every other country is in the same boat re Commissioners (which shouldn't matter as they shouldn't be operating as a representative of their member state). What are we losing out on that we could avoid losing out on? So many people have said its a bad deal, well time to put your money where your mouth is and tell us exactly what could be changed to rectify that.....

More accountability mate!

For example, the European Council meets behind closed doors - do you honestly trust the PMs in there without the public being allowed see how decisions are reached?

Do you honestly trust the EU when the MEPs' expenses haven't been logged for the last 12 years?

What's this I hear about our government requesting that the French withhold a white paper relating to military matters until after the Referendum?

IMO, these are just a couple of items which give the impression that there is significant secrecy in EU circles!

Regards!

Ri na hEireann

grames_bond wrote: »

and do you want to know why the main Irish partied are campaigning for a yes vote? if the treaty is ratified then these parties (which ever one is in power) will have the same salary, the same benifits, the same holidays, the same everything except LESS accountability! they can pass the buck on any area in which the people are not happy with and blame the EU!

This is utter nonsense. If you had any slight realistic insight into the world of politics,paricularly Irish politics you'd realise that politicians are the most power-hungry people you will ever meet. Handing over power to someone else is not something done lightly and regarding occasions when they do hand over powers to the EU it is usually for the betterment of the Irish people.
This treaty is in fact providing more accountablility for national parliaments who now have a fews weeks window to debate and analyse new EU proposals.

grames_bond wrote: »

and gimme a break on the "ireland still has a veto on taxation" bull, anyone heard of political lobbying? other countries could easily use their superior voting powers on other areas to vote against ireland and force us to back down on our taxation stance...one taoiseach, one MEP will buckle sooner or later, its inevitable!

I don't understand what your point is about the MEP here?

Three other countires in the EU have lower corporation tax rates than Ireland. 9 have less than 20% rates. Tax related issues,under lisbon, remain a matter of complete unanimity for each member state and to suggest otherwise is a lie. Sarkozy can have his little tantrum but in reality there is nothing he can do about it.

grames_bond wrote: »

If europe aint broke, don't try fix it!! vote no

Europe is on the path to "breaking" so to speak. Even as it is the pressures of 17 commissioners and such a big parliament are limiting its abilities.

This treaty has no unique selling point,nor is it interesting.All it does is help to make Europe operate more efficiently. I don't see any reason nor can the No-side give any factual reasons as to why anyone should reject Lisbon!

Hermy

Khannie,
It is my humble opinion that this referendum is not being put to the people, especially the French and Dutch, because the governments believe it would be rejected.

molloyjh

Irish and Proud wrote: »

More accountability mate!

For example, the European Council meets behind closed doors - do you honestly trust the PMs in there without the public being allowed see how decisions are reached?

Do you honestly trust the EU when the MEPs' expenses haven't been logged for the last 12 years?

What's this I hear about our government requesting that the French withhold a white paper relating to military matters until after the Referendum?

IMO, these are just a couple of items which give the impression that there is significant secrecy in EU circles!

Regards!

How much reading have you done on the Lisbon Treaty? One of the changes that will be introduced should Lisbon pass is opening the Council up to the public. So its already there.

My understanding is that the MEPs expenses have been logged but that there are questions outstanding over the format in which they were. The money has been accounted for though.

As for this military white paper you've heard of, well I've heard of sexual experiments on alien abductees but then I don't believe everything that I hear. Either way it doesn't sound like anything to do with Lisbon. From a military/defense standpoint all that the Treaty itself says is that we need to improve our military ability, may be asked to assist a member state under attack and the overall EU defense policy must be in line with the UN. Any white paper will have to be reviewed and voted on post Lisbon.

molloyjh

grames_bond wrote: »

If europe aint broke, don't try fix it!! vote no

Don't even try to improve it? Easy to see you're no Bill Gates or Steve Jobs anyway eh!

Scofflaw

Hermy wrote: »

I understand that not all countries traditionally have referenda but perhaps in keeping with the supposed democratic ideals of the E.U. an exception should have been made in this case. There is a lot of debate on the whole issue of voting rights and here we [the Irish] are, deciding on the Treaty for the rest of Europe.

Hmm. Who would make the exception? The EU has no power to dictate how countries ratify treaties. It's up to each individual country - and if the citizens of Italy (for example) think that treaties should not be ratified by referendum - and as it happens, referendums cannot be used in Italy to ratify treaties, it's specifically stated in their constitution - then who has the right to insist that they "make an exception"?

I've pointed out before that the EU-wide pro-referendum protests over the Bank Holiday weekend garnered a grand total of maybe a hundred protesters across the whole EU. There isn't a great groundswell in Europe to have referendums. They're part of our tradition, as they're part of a few other countries' traditions (much as petitions aren't part of ours), and we're relatively used to the lying and screaming they entail. Other countries may well see them as undignified and irrational ways of ratifying international treaties.

cordially,
Scofflaw

VoidStarNull

Hermy wrote: »

I understand that not all countries traditionally have referenda but perhaps in keeping with the supposed democratic ideals of the E.U. an exception should have been made in this case. There is a lot of debate on the whole issue of voting rights and here we [the Irish] are, deciding on the Treaty for the rest of Europe.

We may feel it is unfortunate that others are not holding referenda, but there is nothing that Ireland or the EU institutions can do to influence ratification procedures in other countries. We cannot make it a condition of our acceptance of Lisbon, or of any re-negotiated treaty, that every one else has to hold a referendum to ratify it.

France for example has already made its decision on Lisbon (they have ratified it). They are a sovereign nation and how they choose to make decisions on international treaties is a matter for them alone.

sink

Hermy wrote: »

Khannie,
It is my humble opinion that this referendum is not being put to the people, especially the French and Dutch, because the governments believe it would be rejected.

You could be right, but judging by their reasons for voting no the first time they reject the treaty for reasons which had nothing to do with the treaty. If you can't trust the populace to vote on the issues at hand why is it a good idea that they vote at all? There are only a handful of people protesting about not getting the vote this time round because it would seem that the majority of people just don't care enough to get involved and to learn the issues.

ruskin

To all of those unsure about Lisbon and those intending to vote Yes, I say only one thing:

"If you vote yes on Thursday, there is no going back, no chance to rewind. Consider what you are signing Ireland into."

sink

ruskin wrote: »

To all of those unsure about Lisbon and those intending to vote Yes, I say only one thing:

"If you vote yes on Thursday, there is no going back, no chance to rewind. Consider what you are signing Ireland into."

Actually there is the ultimate rewind, a skip back to before we joined the union. The Lisbon treaty allows for the first time member states to leave the union if they so wish.

Irish and Proud

UB wrote: »

How can we keep our influence in Europe by losing all the good will amassed over the last 35 years?

What good will??? Oh! you mean the €8bn we got?
Well, what did we give up in terms of our fishing industry - I heard we have a substantial part of the EU's fishing waters.

UB wrote: »

Democratically electing delegates to make decisions on your behalf... that's democracy.

...like the European Council of PMs who meet behind closed doors? :rolleyes:

Regards!

molloyjh

Irish and Proud wrote: »

...like the European Council of PMs who meet behind closed doors? :rolleyes:

I refer to my above post which states that the Lisbon Treaty will make Council sittings public. So :rolleyes: yourself.

molloyjh

ruskin wrote: »

To all of those unsure about Lisbon and those intending to vote Yes, I say only one thing:

"If you vote yes on Thursday, there is no going back, no chance to rewind. Consider what you are signing Ireland into."

In fact that is totally untrue, the Treaty will allow us to leave the EU. There is currently no mechanism for leaving the EU now so thats really the ultimate rewind. And for those who are going to vote Yes why would that matter? Why would you vote Yes but want to have an "out"?

ruskin

sink wrote: »

Actually there is the ultimate rewind, a skip back to before we joined the union. The Lisbon treaty allows for the first time member states to leave the union if they so wish.

Agreed. However, I am not in favour of Ireland leaving the European Union. I, like the majority of NO voters acknowledge and celebrate what the Europe has done for us. However, what I say is that after Thursday, if we vote yes, we can never return to the position we are in Europe right now. The political face of Europe will be changed forever, with Ireland a small fish in a huge ocean.

grames_bond

molloyjh wrote: »

Don't even try to improve it? Easy to see you're no Bill Gates or Steve Jobs anyway eh!

ahem

penguinbars wrote: »

an independant body in London completed a study which showed that the EU has never been more efficient....

not much room for improvement without destroying what took years to build!

Hermy

sink wrote: »

If you can't trust the populace to vote on the issues at hand why is it a good idea that they vote at all?

Sink, by 'you' do you mean the respective government. If so, I would say that the respective government must trust the populace to vote on the issues at hand and accept the consequences regardless. Surely to do otherwise is not to be democratic.
I accept that across Europe there have not been mass protests demanding a referendum for all but this is one of the issues I feel strongly about.

Dimitri

I know of a few no voters a whole host of "not bothered voting on something i dont understand and has us damed either way people" but i know of only one yes voter. He has pointed out and can argue quite effectively that despite a few compromises Ireland has always done better when part of a larger entity. Be it the empire or the E.U. Most peoples initial reaction is to scoff at this and say that things were terrible under the empire but some statistics would show that the lot of the irish took an awful hammering when we had complete control over our own destiny. As for me i won't be voting as i'm on holidays. If i could though i'd vote no, from what small amounts i've read of both arguements it seems that while the treaty makes many important declarations of europes direction in the future it does little to define their parameters, we will have to come to the aid of another e.u country sounds fair enough to me but what is aid and what is terrorism, it will take agreement and possibly the european courts to decide what these are if i was to allow Ireland to be part of that i'd like to know what that entails.

molloyjh

grames_bond wrote: »

not much room for improvement without destroying what took years to build!

Wow thats fuzzy logic. The article does not say it functions as efficiently as it possibly could. It says it functions more efficiently than it did in the past. To make it simple, it could have been operating at 50% effieciency for most of its existance and recently gone up to 60% efficiency. Therefore it would be more efficient than ever but there's still another 40% left to squeeze out of it.

sink

Hermy wrote: »

Sink, by 'you' do you mean the respective government. If so, I would say that the respective government must trust the populace to vote on the issues at hand and accept the consequences regardless. Surely to do otherwise is not to be democratic.
I accept that across Europe there have not been mass protests demanding a referendum for all but this is one of the issues I feel strongly about.

I'm a firm supporter of representative democracy and in particular the parliamentary system. The direct democracy approach has too many downsides, you can them clearly by looking at the French, Dutch and now the Irish referenda. Simple single issue referenda on topics like abortion are a good thing, but a complex international treaty with lots of issues some beneficial and others compromises are unfortunately too complex for most people to even bother to try to understand. There are downsides to parliamentary democracy too, but I see them as less than with direct democracy.

miju

I'm voting NO and I will vote

Hermy

sink wrote: »

Simple single issue referenda on topics like abortion are a good thing, but a complex international treaty with lots of issues some beneficial and others compromises are unfortunately too complex for most people to even bother to try to understand.

Have to agree with you there sink.
So where does that leave my 'no vote'?:o

Scofflaw

molloyjh wrote: »

Wow thats fuzzy logic. The article does not say it functions as efficiently as it possibly could. It says it functions more efficiently than it did in the past. To make it simple, it could have been operating at 50% effieciency for most of its existance and recently gone up to 60% efficiency. Therefore it would be more efficient than ever but there's still another 40% left to squeeze out of it.

Actually the original report makes the rather important point that most of the legislation the EU was producing during the period under consideration was boilerplate legislation for the new accession countries - essentially, modified copies of existing EU Directives and Regulations to bring the new members up to speed with everyone else.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Leeby

I've a question.

Part of my reason for wanting to vote yes, is that I always thought that the likes of America saw us as a gateway to Europe, and if we vote no I think we'll have an unsteady relationship with Europe and so the likes of these big companies won't set up in Ireland anymore. (I don't think I explained that very well but I'm hoping you get the gist).

Now I'm being told that since the EU's plan is to compete with America economically, then if we vote yes, these big companies definately won't be setting up in Ireland anymore.

So now I'm confused, a little help anyone?

AtomicHorror

Leeby wrote: »

Now I'm being told that since the EU's plan is to compete with America economically, then if we vote yes, these big companies definately won't be setting up in Ireland anymore.

Unless we plan to match the US industry for industry, I don't see why multinationals would be put off setting up in Ireland as a gateway to Europe. I definitely think that any perception (true or not) that our relationship with Europe has degenerated is going to have a negative impact on the likelihood that a multinational will set up here. Given that our economy is slowing now, reduced ties with the EU, real or perceived, are going to be problematic for us.

IRLConor

Leeby wrote: »

I've a question.

Part of my reason for wanting to vote yes, is that I always thought that the likes of America saw us as a gateway to Europe, and if we vote no I think we'll have an unsteady relationship with Europe and so the likes of these big companies won't set up in Ireland anymore. (I don't think I explained that very well but I'm hoping you get the gist).

Now I'm being told that since the EU's plan is to compete with America economically, then if we vote yes, these big companies definately won't be setting up in Ireland anymore.

So now I'm confused, a little help anyone?

There's a few competing ideas here.

The motivation for US companies to set up here are pretty much these:

• Low corporation tax.
• Native English speaking population.

Neither of these will be affected by the Lisbon Treaty.

Now, if Europe competes more with America the influx of US companies won't change because, competing or not, American companies will still need to set up offices for their EU-based businesses to try and out-sell their EU competitors.

sink

Leeby wrote: »

I've a question.

Part of my reason for wanting to vote yes, is that I always thought that the likes of America saw us as a gateway to Europe, and if we vote no I think we'll have an unsteady relationship with Europe and so the likes of these big companies won't set up in Ireland anymore. (I don't think I explained that very well but I'm hoping you get the gist).

Now I'm being told that since the EU's plan is to compete with America economically, then if we vote yes, these big companies definately won't be setting up in Ireland anymore.

So now I'm confused, a little help anyone?

It can be a little confusing alright. When people talk about competition in the commercial world it does not exactly equate to competition between two bodies whereby all the constituent part of one are in direct competition with the other. In other words you can't think of the US and the EU as two big separate entities, and all US companies on one side and all EU companies on the other. Individual businesses from either block act in their individual interest not in the interest of their home country. So when the EU is in competition with the US it is in fact competing for the businesses of the US to move services and production to the EU. So by the EU being more competitive with the US, the EU and Ireland will attract more US businesses away from the US to Europe.

molloyjh

Leeby wrote: »

I've a question.

Part of my reason for wanting to vote yes, is that I always thought that the likes of America saw us as a gateway to Europe, and if we vote no I think we'll have an unsteady relationship with Europe and so the likes of these big companies won't set up in Ireland anymore. (I don't think I explained that very well but I'm hoping you get the gist).

Now I'm being told that since the EU's plan is to compete with America economically, then if we vote yes, these big companies definately won't be setting up in Ireland anymore.

So now I'm confused, a little help anyone?

There will still be a market for the American companies to sell to in Europe and so they are still going to need a gateway in. We may be setting ourselves up as competition to the US, but companies have no national loyalty (by and large) and so will go where its most financially beneficial. As long as the market exists the companies will trade here in the EU.

AtomicHorror

Hermy wrote: »

Khannie,
It is my humble opinion that this referendum is not being put to the people, especially the French and Dutch, because the governments believe it would be rejected.

Isn't it also possible that it is not being put to the people because they are not required to put it to them? That given a choice between an expensive referendum and an inexpensive decision by democratically-elected politicians, the obvious choice would be to save the taxpayer's money?

Leeby

Wow, quick responses, thanks all, very helpful.

ruskin

I see alot of voters in the poll above who would vote no, but are choosing not to vote. Please, please, come out and vote down this cryptic, undemocratic treaty.

Hermy

I fully accept that it is not necessary for every country to have a referendum on the Treaty but I dare say that many more countries might reject the Treaty if it were put to the people.