Top 3 Reasons to Vote YES or NO

Randomness

I thought I had made my mind up on the Treaty but I'm not so sure anymore.

It seems there has been a lot of debate here for and against so I would appreciate your opinions.

Please give me your top 3 reasons why you are voting YES or NO.....

Replies appreciated, concise if possible .:)

sink

There are many reasons to vote yes but these are my top 3


1. Increase of power to the European Parliament.

The parliament currently votes on only 80% legislation, the Lisbon Treaty increases this to 95%. The parliament currently only approves 20% of the budget, this will be increased to 100%

2. The commission is slimmed down fairly and all states are represented equally

Under the Nice treaty the commission will be slimmed down in 2009. However the rules are not yet set, Lisbon sets those rules in a manner which gives 100% equality to all states big and small. The larger states originally wanted a permanent commissioner and all the small states would rotate. The Irish delegation got them to agree to agree to a binding system of equality. If the treaty does not pass this is back on the table.

3. The Councils must meet in the open.

At present the European Council and the Council of Ministers meet behind closed doors. This arouses suspicion in the public as they do not get to see how deals are reached. Under the Lisbon treaty the Councils must meet in the open providing valuable transparency.

Most no voters argument are false or spurious. johnnyq so far has give the best real reasons to vote no. Altough I don't think his concerns are significant at least they are based on fact.

johnnyq wrote: »

My top five:

1) I don't think that the EU having a common defence policy/agency is actually a good thing. I think that defence/foreign policy is best handled by every individual country. Otherwise we have the UN - and for the other 21 EU countries they have NATO.
Now if the EU was to become a state, then fair enough, but that is not the aim of this treaty. Hence I don't want a European High Commissioner for Foreign Policy

2) I don't want Ireland to be obliged to increase military capabilities as stated under Article 28.

3) I am unhappy that NATO is mentioned and that an alignment to NATO is implied by Article 28 and that cooperation under this defence policy "shall be consistent with commitments under NATO"

Rb

Oh ffs, it's went from "Reasons to vote yes/no" to "top ten reasons to vote yes/no" and now to "Top 3". Wtf.

johnnyq

To add another 3 to sink (ps. thanks sink)

1) Created figureheads of Europe - which represent us on the world stage- which remain directly unelected (e.g. Barrosso) and a new President of European Council and Foreign Minister Commissioner who will also not be directly elected by the people.

2) Europe is capable of being so much better than is presented in the treaty. What's wrong with sub-commissioners like junior ministers in Ireland, so that no country loses a commissioner which is important to a small country like Ireland. A better deal can be done

3) There is a loss of 30+ vetos in areas (though not tax/military) which are important for Irish interests in exchange for virtually nothing.

Randomness

Rb wrote: »

Oh ffs, it's went from "Reasons to vote yes/no" to "top ten reasons to vote yes/no" and now to "Top 3". Wtf.

OK then.........

Well as someone who was away and couldn't participate in the debate I thought I could come to "friendly" boards to find some opinions.

Maybe you feel the topic has been over-analysed but I hardly think someone asking a simple question 12 hours before being allowed to vote is that big of a problem.

I saw that there were a good few people around so I thought I could get some up to date opinions and also find a strongest/top reasons why people were voting in different ways.

Like I would say to any negative poster, don't post if it's not helpful to anyone.

biko

Just read any of the myriad of threads in this forum or AH.
The reasons people vote Y or N will be in there.

Do - the - research

Daftendirekt

I'll be voting yes because:

• Lisbon extends the decision making powers of the EU Parliament, the only directly elected body of the EU by extending co-decsion to new areas including "agriculture, asylum, immigration, judicial co-operation in criminal and civil matters, and measures relating to the internal market." (From the Referendum Commission's website)
• National Parliaments will have a say in the decision making process of the EU for the first time (they have eight weeks to offer an opinion on the proposal. If a third of the member states' National Parliaments' object, then the proposal has to be reviewed).
• The Citizen's Initiative gives the Average Joes of Europe the chance to petition the EU to debate a proposal on a particular issue.
• Lisbon makes the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding.
• Increased transparency in the legislative process. At present the Council of Ministers meets behind closed doors. If Lisbon passes, they will be required to meet, and debate, in public.
• Change from veto to QMV in certain areas means a more democratic Europe, although we retain our veto in essential areas such as direct taxation and Justice and Defense. (To my knowledge we have the option of a case by case opt in on Justice matters though. Can anyone confirm this?)
• President of the European Council becomes a full time position, giving Europe a stronger voice on the world stage.

That's all I can think of for now, hopefully it's been someway helpful. If you need any more info, check out the link in my signature.


Edit: Sorry, I know there's more than three here, but I'll leave 'em up anyway.

Rb

Daftendirekt wrote: »

The Citizen's Initiative gives the Average Joes of Europe the chance to petition the EU to debate a proposal on a particular issue.

You should probably mention that you've to have over 1 million signatures before bringing your case to them and they can still opt out of dealing with it should they want.

sink

Rb wrote: »

You should probably mention that you've to have over 1 million signatures before bringing your case to them and they can still opt out of dealing with it should they want.

Or 0.2% of the population, doesn't seem that much when you put it like that now does it. Do you think it should be less?

Rb

sink wrote: »

Or 0.2% of the population, doesn't seem that much when you put it like that now does it. Do you think it should be less?

It's too generic. Look at the size of the population here, if we wanted to petition something that was affecting us in particular, we'd have to get the signatures of a good chunk of the population here.

0.2% may look small, but 1 million people is a massive amount to simply debate an issue.

johnnyq

Look at what it proposes.

In exchange for 1 million signatures the unelected commission will consider the proposal.

I'd prefer an elected commission myself which would reflect the views of 100% of the population not just 0.2% which lets face it will only be abused by nazi and communist movements anyway.


Edit: Daftendirekt also mentions the president of the european council who will also be unelected fyi. This person as Daften says will voice for europe on the world stage, wouldn't you prefer if you could elect that person who represents you?

Double Edit: And on the transparency, did they really need us to vote yes just to meet in public. You'd think they should be doing this anyway!!

sink

Rb wrote: »

It's too generic. Look at the size of the population here, if we wanted to petition something that was affecting us in particular, we'd have to get the signatures of a good chunk of the population here.

0.2% may look small, but 1 million people is a massive amount to simply debate an issue.

Any issue that solely affects Ireland should be dealt with at national level through the principle of subsidiary. Something new in the Lisbon treaty and another good reason to vote yes.

johnnyq

sink wrote: »

Any issue that solely affects Ireland should be dealt with at national level through the principle of subsidiary. Something new in the Lisbon treaty and another good reason to vote yes.

But you agree it could be abused by Nazis and Communists who after all represent minority views in many countries?

sink

johnnyq wrote: »

Edit: Daftendirekt also mentions the president of the european council who will also be unelected fyi. This person as Daften says will voice for europe on the world stage, wouldn't you prefer if you could elect that person who represents you?

Double Edit: And on the transparency, did they really need us to vote yes just to meet in public. You'd think they should be doing this anyway!!

They may not be directly elected but they are elected. We elect our TD's who elect our Taoiseach who elects the President of The European Council.

Not exactly a reason to vote against it now.

sink

johnnyq wrote: »

But you agree it could be abused by Nazis and Communists who after all represent minority views in many countries?

Yes and that is why it only has to be considered and no ther legal action is required. Lot's of European countries have a petition system instead of referendums, it' just a different style of democracy.

johnnyq

sink wrote: »

They may not be directly elected but they are elected. We elect our TD's who elect our Taoiseach who elects the President of The European Council.

Not exactly a reason to vote against it now.

That's a very long chain of representation for a very influential figurehead role.

We directly elect our figureheads for a reason. Just like our President.

turgon

sink wrote: »

Or 0.2% of the population, doesn't seem that much when you put it like that now does it. Do you think it should be less?

Well the problem is is that they are not obliged to actually act on it.

sink

johnnyq wrote: »

That's a very long chain of representation for a very influential figurehead role.

We directly elect our figureheads for a reason. Just like our President.

I would say they are not at all influential, they are not allowed act independently, they have to represent the views of the European council through unanimous or QMV vote. Any one of the 785 MEP's have more independence and possibly more influence.

sink

turgon wrote: »

Well the problem is is that they are not obliged to actually act on it.

Do you think 0.2% of the population should be able to force something on the other 99.8%?

turgon

sink wrote: »

Do you think 0.2% of the population should be able to force something on the other 99.8%?

Sorry to the OP that this has gone off topic but...

The commission don't have to do anything at all. But even if they do act on it, it has to pass through the usual legislative passage. So to claim that 0.2 per cent of the population would be "forcing" it on the rest is a bit much.

sink

turgon wrote: »

Sorry to the OP that this has gone off topic but...

The commission don't have to do anything at all. But even if they do act on it, it has to pass through the usual legislative passage. So to claim that 0.2 per cent of the population would be "forcing" it on the rest is a bit much.

That's what I'm saying. They are not required to act on it and that is a good thing in my book. It would appear to me that you think this is a bad idea and that they should have to act on it, is that what you are saying? If a petition makes it to the council and it has enough popular support the council through political self preservation will have to come up with a proposal. If there is no petition system they can just ignore the populace.

Scofflaw

sink wrote: »

That's what I'm saying. They are not required to act on it and that is a good thing in my book. It would appear to me that you think this is a bad idea and that they should have to act on it, is that what you are saying? If a petition makes it to the council and it has enough popular support the council through political self preservation will have to come up with a proposal. If there is no petition system they can just ignore the populace.

Hmm. Petition to allow...no, require...the teaching of Creationism in school classes. Can we get a million signatures? Sure.

cordially,
Scofflaw

johnnyq

sink wrote: »

If there is no petition system they (the commission) can just ignore the populace.

So why not have them directly elected then, or at least Barrosso. That would solve that problem without pandering to the 0.2% of extremes out there.

johnnyq

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. Petition to allow...no, require...the teaching of Creationism in school classes. Can we get a million signatures? Sure.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You know that education in this form is not an EU competence.

Shame on you scofflaw for being so misleading:D;)

sink

johnnyq wrote: »

So why not have them directly elected then, or at least Barrosso. That would solve that problem without pandering to the 0.2% of extremes out there.

Well as I pointed out in the Unelected President thread.

sink wrote: »

There are problems with having a directly elected head. First of all there are 20 something official languages in Europe, how would candidates campaign? Second by directly electing a candidate you would have to give more power to the President of the European Council, they would have to be able to set out their own policy and lead. This would be more like a proper state, the EU is still just a structured body where governments can cooperate. Finally the directly elected President could also act independently of popular opinion as demonstrated brilliantly by George Bush because they can't be sacked. The president under the lisbon treaty can't act independently of the European council and can be sacked by them at any time.

And if we directly elected each of the commissioner separately, they would no longer be neutral and would be obligated to do what's best for their electorate, i.e. Ireland.

Scofflaw

johnnyq wrote: »

You know that education in this form is not an EU competence.

Shame on you scofflaw for being so misleading:D;)

True, true...I was ignoring that for the sake of an example that makes me shudder. There are others, but they're all the same basic point - vexatious and pernicious proposals like making it acceptable to discriminate against minorities (which, being correct this time, would run counter to several EU commitments). Making it a requirement that the Commission take legislation forward on foot of any successful petition would have the usual unwanted side-effects.

Besides, this is what the original petition asked for.

cordially,
Scofflaw

WooPeeA

Daftendirekt wrote: »

I'll be voting yes because:

• Lisbon extends the decision making powers of the EU Parliament, the only directly elected body of the EU by extending co-decsion to new areas including "agriculture, asylum, immigration, judicial co-operation in criminal and civil matters, and measures relating to the internal market." (From the Referendum Commission's website)
• National Parliaments will have a say in the decision making process of the EU for the first time (they have eight weeks to offer an opinion on the proposal. If a third of the member states' National Parliaments' object, then the proposal has to be reviewed).
• The Citizen's Initiative gives the Average Joes of Europe the chance to petition the EU to debate a proposal on a particular issue.
• Lisbon makes the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding.
• Increased transparency in the legislative process. At present the Council of Ministers meets behind closed doors. If Lisbon passes, they will be required to meet, and debate, in public.
• Change from veto to QMV in certain areas means a more democratic Europe, although we retain our veto in essential areas such as direct taxation and Justice and Defense. (To my knowledge we have the option of a case by case opt in on Justice matters though. Can anyone confirm this?)
• President of the European Council becomes a full time position, giving Europe a stronger voice on the world stage.

That's all I can think of for now, hopefully it's been someway helpful. If you need any more info, check out the link in my signature.


Edit: Sorry, I know there's more than three here, but I'll leave 'em up anyway.

Very good reasons! I would say the same.

I would also recommend http://www.vote4europe.ie/

johnnyq

sink wrote:

Well as I pointed out in the Unelected President thread.

Look here for my reply on these points

gaf1983

I'm voting yes. Many of the reasons why are expressed eloquently in this email that landed in my parents' inbox which originated from John Fitzgibbon, a researcher into Euroscepticism at Sussex University. I think he sums the pros of a Yes vote up fairly well.

I will give you more than 3 to vote yes!



No. 1) What the Treaty is all about in essence is changes in the voting procedure by the member states. With Nice each country had a set number of votes related to the size of its population. However during the negotiations Spain, Poland and Italy got more votes than the other member states, so the voting system is not very fair. What Lisbon does it get rid of that unfair voting system and replace it altogether with this: For a decision to be made 55% the member states (i.e. 14) whose population comes to over 65% of the total EU population (over 300m) must vote in favour.

What this essentially means is that the big states (France, Germany, UK, Italy, Spain) cannot vote against the interests of the small states as they need 9 other countries on their side. This is not going to happen given that small states are in the majority. Additionally small states cannot vote against big ones as they do not have the population requirement.

So what it all means is that both big and small countries have to work together to reach a decision. Thus France and Germany can not tell us what to do!



2.) Loss of a commissioner is meaningless. A commissioner is meant to represent the interests of the EU, not Ireland, so it does not matter if we have a commissioner or not as if they decide to promote Irish interests ahead of the EU then they will be fired. Besides we only lose out a 1/3 of the time.

Ireland has a permanent influence in the EU commission anyway as the EU can only do what the member states allow it to do. Ireland has permanent representatives from the various government departments negotiating with all the other member states to come to a decision about what the EU can and can not do in certain areas. Only when everyone comes to a common decision is the EU allowed to act. The process basically means that in the EU it is not the done thing to press ahead if some countries oppose a decision, that everyone must be in agreement before any decision is reached.



3.) Lisbon allows for more expansion which makes a federal Europe almost impossible. Those countries most in favour of a federal Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Belgium) since enlargement are in a minority. Further enlargement (Croatia, Macedonia) makes a federal Europe all but impossible as the Eastern Members are totally against this. Nice caps membership at the present 27, but if we want to bring in new members (and we do as 15 years ago Yugoslavia was filled with atrocities and now they are all reforming democracies competing to join the EU first) we have to vote for Lisbon which allows the changes necessary to do this.



4.) Following on from this the EU is not going to change our low tax base as the majority of new member state have low taxes too and they do not want them changed. As I said at the start the EU can only do what member states tell it to do and a common position must be reached before any change happens. Poland, Romania, Czech Rep., Slovakia, Estonia, Luxembourg, Cyprus all have similar tax rates to us so they are not going to let any change in tax happen.



5.) Lisbon is good for Eurosceptics! Lisbon brings in two things that Eurosceptics should love. An exit clause for members that want to leave and an increased role for national parliaments. Before there was no official means for exiting the EU, Lisbon provides that. Also Lisbon gives national parliaments an official role in the EU for the first time. This means that their role can be expanded in the future. The provision is that if half of national parliaments (14) {not the governments the parliaments, Dáil Éireann etc} vote to object to a new EU law (even if the heads of govt. accept it) then the EU commission must re-draft it.



6.) Lisbon has no "neo-liberal bias". Think about it. Would countries with large and powerful social welfare systems such as Spain, Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark, Finland the Netherlands, Portugal, Greece negotiate and agree on a Treaty that allows the EU to dismantle the social welfare systems that are sacrosanct to them? EU member states have the most generous welfare states in the world, our own government is busy dismantling our own, and yet the EU is neo-liberal?

The EU forced the Irish government to give equal pay to women in 1978, EU law allowed David Norris to challenge Ireland's criminalisation of homosexuality, all of Ireland's environmental protection legislation comes from the EU. The EU has been the most progressive force in bringing equality to Irish society bar none. And yet it is neo-liberal? Hardly.



Overall there is no great policy change with Lisbon. What it does is change voting procedures and allow for new members. These are good things for Ireland as a.) it makes voting more fair, b.) new members make a federal Europe less possible and c.) these new members need to become part of the EU less they fall back to horrific ethnic conflict.



Sorry its a bit long. Email if you have any more questions and forward on the email to other undecided's!



John

Duffman

Rb wrote: »

You should probably mention that you've to have over 1 million signatures before bringing your case to them and they can still opt out of dealing with it should they want.

Indeed. And for all those who are concerned about rotation of Commissioners (and equal treatment of all Member States in that respect) you might also note that the Council and Parliament are under no obligation to act on a proposal from the Commission either.

You might say nobody has to do anything, the decision to act resting solely with two bodies consisting entirely of elected representatives, the Council (ministers elected in each Member State) and the Parliament (directly elected MEPs). Y'know, good old representative democracy.

Of course the petition thing above isn't binding (now that would be undemocratic), at least it affords another option to people who want to make their voices heard.

Another reason to vote yes today.

Jimkel

Daftendirekt wrote: »

I'll be voting yes because:

• Lisbon makes the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding.

ah Yes and look how effective the UN have been in Palestine:rolleyes: Somethings rotten in Europe. Our gov has already been squeezing the Irish workers out of Dublin, While banks and gov agencies have been handing out loans and grants to foreign workers to get homes and taxi plates etc while many of my Irish friends with BA degrees are unemployed, And if we complain?? we are branded racists. I am not a racist but I believe that charity starts at home.

Duffman

Jimkel wrote: »

ah Yes and look how effective the UN have been in Palestine:rolleyes: Somethings rotten in Europe. Our gov has already been squeezing the Irish workers out of Dublin, While banks and gov agencies have been handing out loans and grants to foreign workers to get homes and taxi plates etc while many of my Irish friends with BA degrees are unemployed, And if we complain?? we are branded racists. I am not a racist but I believe that charity starts at home.

I know what you mean. Foreign workers coming over here, taking our jobs, taking our women. It's all foreigners though. Oh, and I'm not racist.

:rolleyes:

Jimkel

3 Reasons to vote yes:

1: Wars and invasions are a good thing for wealthy companies, and therefore a good thing for those in the pockets of lobbiests ie: our major Political parties and politicians
(Can anyone say.... Bertie!) so since they've all been so nice lets help make them even richer and even more unnacountable.

2: Privitise public services so we can all enjoy longer waiting lists for hospitals, and incompetance in our health service. (Remember the recent cancer test results that were sent to the wrong people, thats what happens when you privatise sectors of health care. You get = unaccountable, incompetant services from an underpaid uncaring workforce)

3: To help cement a new class based society where your nationality effects how much you can earn in ANY EU country, us Irish will be unemployable next to the "cheaper" eastern European workers. So lets all work more hours, earn less money and hey we will be so busy we won't even notice what we've lost.

so vote YES and lets all be part of one of the greatest history lessons in the making.

Jimkel

Duffman wrote: »

I know what you mean. Foreign workers coming over here, taking our jobs, taking our women. It's all foreigners though. Oh, and I'm not racist.

:rolleyes:

see what I mean/ When did I blame foreigners on anything? I blame the Gov on the current state of affairs here in Ireland, Irelands lost it's culture and morality and turned into pile of greedy idiots clamboring for a foot on the materiaistic ladder. Face it man nowadays your nothing if you don't have that plasma screen, that car, that hefty bank account and that 3 bedroom house. I remember the 80's, sure we had'nt got much money but hey we had community, culture, morals and high hopes, wan't perfect but at least we had an identity you could believe in. As far as I'm concerned we've turned into a nation of Stupid people who think with their bank accounts.

Actually my jobs pretty safe since it's highly specialised and as far as being a racist maybe I am after all I am half Pakistani and sometimes I dislike myself. Or maybe just maybe I'm a human being like everyone else thats so sick of this rethorical PC Sh1te that I could puke. I would prefer to see Even Sinn Fein running this country then feckin Brussels.

johnnyq

Jimkel wrote: »

see what I mean/ When did I blame foreigners on anything? I blame the Gov on the current state of affairs here in Ireland, Irelands lost it's culture and morality and turned into pile of greedy idiots clamboring for a foot on the materiaistic ladder. Face it man nowadays your nothing if you don't have that plasma screen, that car, that hefty bank account and that 3 bedroom house. I remember the 80's, sure we had'nt got much money but hey we had community, culture, morals and high hopes, wan't perfect but at least we had an identity you could believe in. As far as I'm concerned we've turned into a nation of Stupid people who think with their bank accounts.

Actually my jobs pretty safe since it's highly specialised and as far as being a racist maybe I am after all I am half Pakistani and sometimes I dislike myself. Or maybe just maybe I'm a human being like everyone else thats so sick of this rethorical PC Sh1te that I could puke. I would prefer to see Even Sinn Fein running this country then feckin Brussels.

For one, I am quite relieved that racism and domestic issues have not been to the forefront of this campaign.

Phototoxin

1. Increase of power to the European Parliament.

The parliament currently votes on only 80% legislation, the Lisbon Treaty increases this to 95%. The parliament currently only approves 20% of the budget, this will be increased to 100%

2. The commission is slimmed down fairly and all states are represented equally

Under the Nice treaty the commission will be slimmed down in 2009. However the rules are not yet set, Lisbon sets those rules in a manner which gives 100% equality to all states big and small. The larger states originally wanted a permanent commissioner and all the small states would rotate. The Irish delegation got them to agree to agree to a binding system of equality. If the treaty does not pass this is back on the table.

3. The Councils must meet in the open.

At present the European Council and the Council of Ministers meet behind closed doors. This arouses suspicion in the public as they do not get to see how deals are reached. Under the Lisbon treaty the Councils must meet in the open providing valuable transparency.

I dont see how 1 & 2 are reasons to vote yes, to me they are reasons to vote no

sink

Phototoxin wrote: »

I dont see how 1 & 2 are reasons to vote yes, to me they are reasons to vote no

So you would rather the council have exclusive say over 20% of EU legislation rather than the directly elected parliament?

And you would also rather the larger states to have a permanent commissioner and have the smaller states rotate theirs every 5-10 years?

Ivan

That is not what we are voting on. We are voting on the current proposed changes, just because we might disagree with the current proposed changes (or some of them) doesnt mean we are asking for (or responsible for) any future changes. Those future changes, when debated and written up into a treaty will then be voted on by the peoples of europe (i.e. just Ireland )

This is what I dislike about this whole affair, you dont like the current treaty (or parts thereof) therefore you must want this other option (that really no sane person should want). Why cant we have some of the things from lisbon and remove some of the stuff we dont want? Is it so wrong to believe that we could do better?

I am still a little shaky as to what way I am going to vote this evening, but I am leaning towards no.

I hate to say it, but the "if you arent sure, vote no" argument is about to be employed here, albeit in a different way than usual; there are so many good features of the Lisbon treaty and so many bad, that I am just not sure if it is a good thing or a bad thing, as a whole. Therefore, I would kinda like to see some more debate, some more analysis and a new document rewritten. Whats another 7 years in the grand scheme of things? It seems to me, that this is all too important to rush into, simply because you like several aspects of this treaty... or because everyone in your government is voting for it... or because Bono is voting for it :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

Ivan wrote: »

That is not what we are voting on. We are voting on the current proposed changes, just because we might disagree with the current proposed changes (or some of them) doesnt mean we are asking for (or responsible for) any future changes. Those future changes, when debated and written up into a treaty will then be voted on by the peoples of europe (i.e. just Ireland )

This is what I dislike about this whole affair, you dont like the current treaty (or parts thereof) therefore you must want this other option (that really no sane person should want). Why cant we have some of the things from lisbon and remove some of the stuff we dont want? Is it so wrong to believe that we could do better?

I am still a little shaky as to what way I am going to vote this evening, but I am leaning towards no.

I hate to say it, but the "if you arent sure, vote no" argument is about to be employed here, albeit in a different way than usual; there are so many good features of the Lisbon treaty and so many bad, that I am just not sure if it is a good thing or a bad thing, as a whole. Therefore, I would kinda like to see some more debate, some more analysis and a new document rewritten. Whats another 7 years in the grand scheme of things? It seems to me, that this is all too important to rush into, simply because you like several aspects of this treaty... or because everyone in your government is voting for it... or because Bono is voting for it :rolleyes:

Sure. The grab-bag issue with treaties is a problem for me - one of the features I like about Lisbon is the clause that allows it to be amended bit by bit (the one generally mischaracterised as the "self-amending clause").

cordially,
Scofflaw

Call Me Jimmy

Ivan wrote: »

That is not what we are voting on. We are voting on the current proposed changes, just because we might disagree with the current proposed changes (or some of them) doesnt mean we are asking for (or responsible for) any future changes. Those future changes, when debated and written up into a treaty will then be voted on by the peoples of europe (i.e. just Ireland )

This is what I dislike about this whole affair, you dont like the current treaty (or parts thereof) therefore you must want this other option (that really no sane person should want). Why cant we have some of the things from lisbon and remove some of the stuff we dont want? Is it so wrong to believe that we could do better?

I am still a little shaky as to what way I am going to vote this evening, but I am leaning towards no.

I hate to say it, but the "if you arent sure, vote no" argument is about to be employed here, albeit in a different way than usual; there are so many good features of the Lisbon treaty and so many bad, that I am just not sure if it is a good thing or a bad thing, as a whole. Therefore, I would kinda like to see some more debate, some more analysis and a new document rewritten. Whats another 7 years in the grand scheme of things? It seems to me, that this is all too important to rush into, simply because you like several aspects of this treaty... or because everyone in your government is voting for it... or because Bono is voting for it :rolleyes:

It is my opinion that after roughly 7 years of countries working this treaty out another 7 years will leave us at much the same place, but there won't be any analysis and debate until a couple days before it is voted on again as well imo.

claudiog

In my opinion the Europe should be a lightweight confederation.
The treaty? Take a look to the swiss constitution. That is simple, gives small and limited power to the federal gov, assuring the autonomy of each state (cantons), stating the rights of the citizens. No much more.
I don't remember well ...may be 30 pages?

Scofflaw

claudiog wrote: »

In my opinion the Europe should be a lightweight confederation.
The treaty? Take a look to the swiss constitution. That is simple, gives small and limited power to the federal gov, assuring the autonomy of each state (cantons), stating the rights of the citizens. No much more.
I don't remember well ...may be 30 pages?

Plus thousands of legal judgments, and tens of thousands of pages of legal opinion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PrivateEye

Still 30 + minutes.


1) The whole thing is open to legal interpretation. Read over it. If WE Cant agree on it now....

2) Bad for workers rights/public services. See IBECS own submission to the NCOE, which talks of the 'liberalisation' of services, among which they list HEALTH.

3) 3 out of 460+ Million have a vote. Democratic?

4) Our neutrality is safe....but why should we increase our military spending? Do we need to? Plenty of other areas to spend the cash.

5) France has stated its desire to harmonise taxes during its presidency. We need to send a strong message.

carveone

PrivateEye wrote: »

5) France has stated its desire to harmonise taxes during its presidency. We need to send a strong message.

France: indirect tax rates
- Duties 5-17%
- Books 5.5%
- VAT 19.6%

I could live with that!