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

darkman2

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

solice

See the sig

bill_ashmount

See the sig

solice

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

bill_ashmount

solice wrote: »

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

You do, check your sig.

solice

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

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

sparklepants

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

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

bijapos

Some good things in Lisbon, BUT:

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

So its a No.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bijapos wrote: »

Some good things in Lisbon, BUT:

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

So its a No.

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

:rolleyes:

solice

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

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

:rolleyes:

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

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

bladespin

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

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

Martin 2

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

ChocolateSauce

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

FutureTaoiseach

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

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

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

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

6.The Spanish unemployment rate of 18% suggests that the economic-dividend from voting yes is not there.

Dear gods, are you still peddling that canard? Have you no shame?

FutureTaoiseach

oscarBravo wrote: »

Dear gods, are you still peddling that canard? Have you no shame?

There may not be causality but the point I am making is that there is no evidence voting yes has helped the Spanish economy. Do you accept that? In that context, what evidence is there of an economic case for voting yes to Lisbon? Because you know well that the govt is pushing the argument that there is an economic case for voting yes.

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

There may not be causality but the point I am making is that there is no evidence voting yes has helped the Spanish economy.

Would you care to explain to me how voting to ratify a treaty that was not subsequently implemented could have any effect whatsoever on a country's economy?

In that context, what evidence is there of an economic case for voting yes to Lisbon?

Any suggestion that there may be an economic case for ratifying Lisbon is predicated on the assumption that the treaty will actually come into effect.

Because you know well that the govt is pushing the argument that there is an economic case for voting yes.

Do you seriously think anyone's suggesting that our ratification of Lisbon would have beneficial effects even if the treaty doesn't come into effect?

Or are you just trying to cloud the issue with irrelevancies?

Iwasfrozen

FutureTaoiseach wrote:

3. The 'guarantees' on the Commissioner are not legally-binding because they are not included in the Council decisions made in Brussels. The IIEA site acknowledges that the decisions applied to taxation, neutrality and abortion but not the Commission or workers-rights. I don't trust the politicians to keep their word on the Commissioner. Why couldn't they have included the promise of a permanent Commissioner in the European Council decisions?

The European commission is an unelected country club for retired politicians, why would you want to keep it open ?

FutureTaoiseach

oscarBravo wrote: »

Would you care to explain to me how voting to ratify a treaty that was not subsequently implemented could have any effect whatsoever on a country's economy? Any suggestion that there may be an economic case for ratifying Lisbon is predicated on the assumption that the treaty will actually come into effect. Do you seriously think anyone's suggesting that our ratification of Lisbon would have beneficial effects even if the treaty doesn't come into effect?

Or are you just trying to cloud the issue with irrelevancies?

Well the way they are putting is seems to imply there is a 'reputational' issue and one of goodwill. Note the Establishment rabbiting on about "our reputation" have been damaged by the no vote, as if somehow there is economic value in 'restoring' it by being good little boys and girls and voting yes. Examples 1, 2:

Brendan Butler (IBEC) wrote:

We now have concrete confirmation that it is the EU, its rules and its institutions that are our most effective line of defence. The international economic crisis demonstrated the need for co-operation on a global scale and, in itself, has clearly made the case for a stronger, more effective Europe....Our reputation and power of persuasion in Europe is a great strength but, rightly or wrongly, the Lisbon rejection has undermined us on both counts. It has led to confusion and is an ever-present and unwanted distraction from the important work of Irish officials in Europe.

Brian Cowen wrote:

There can be no denying that the outcome of last year’s referendum caused many across Europe to wonder whether Ireland’s commitment to, and influence in, the union was wavering. We now have the opportunity to send a powerful signal that nothing could be further from the truth. By ratifying Lisbon, by reasserting solidarity with our partners, and by fully implementing Lisbon’s enhanced role for the Oireachtas in EU affairs, Ireland can resume its place in the vanguard of the union.Our membership has never been more important. In these times of unprecedented global challenges – the economy and the international credit crisis, climate change and energy security, regional stability and tackling terrorism – the European Union offers Ireland the best possible means by which to protect our interests and to influence the shaping of global policies and their impacts.
That is why I am determined to play my part in ensuring that when a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty is held later this year, Ireland will deliver a resounding Yes to Europe.

iwasfrozen wrote:

The European commission is an unelected country club for retired politicians, why would you want to keep it open ?

It's also the executive of the EU, with sole power to initiate EU legislation (except on the CFSP and some areas of JHA). In that context, the retention of the Irish voice and perspective is crucial, notably on taxation issues.

bijapos

Ok, I'll try to clear up a few points.
Firstly I am not anti European, I lived on the continent for 10 years, I am against lisbon because I view it as anti-european in a lot of ways.

Popebuckfast says my 3 points have nothing to do with it. They have. You cannot in any way disguise the fact that the treaty or an essintially same document has been put before europeans 3 times and has been rejected 3 times. The fact alone that they do not accept and respect this (our case being the best example) is to be frank worrying. You might ask yourself how is the basis of a new Europe supposed to be taken seriously by the people when it has been founded on the non respect and acceptance of a valid vote taken by the people of one of its countries?

TBH if all references to a common foreign policy were removed I'd probably vote in favour but I do not know one single person who has ever asked for its inclusion or who has ever intimated to me that it would be a good idea.

What I mean regarding the direction Europe is taking is that a certain amount of common agreements and cooperation is important but to me there is a limit. We generally have very little control over what our own government in Dublin does, or for that matter what our county council does, I'm not interested in a higher level og government over which I have even less say. The EU has a huge amount of internal problems about the way it is run, corruption, wastage, cronyism and so on and so on. The fact that we can do very little about our own problems here bodes well for trying to solve them on a wider scale.

I also personally couldnt give a fiddlers about any of this guarantee nonsense that Ireland got. I have been working in and around Europe for just over 20 years and I look at Lisbon from a European point of view, not an Irish one.

TaxiManMartin

I voted already.
Im not voting again.

Iwasfrozen

bijapos wrote:

It's also the executive of the EU, with sole power to initiate EU legislation (except on the CFSP and some areas of JHA). In that context, the retention of the Irish voice and perspective is crucial, notably on taxation issues.

Irish Commissioners do not serve Irish interests, this is an old lie that Libertas spread.
European commissioners work for Europe only, and any commissioner that is seen as favouring his own country is warned/suspended.

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

As a convinced pro-European I am voting No...

Hold it just there, buddy!

Nah. Why should I bother? Go right ahead with your nonsense. But please recognise that I do not accept your opening premise.

FutureTaoiseach

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Irish Commissioners do not serve Irish interests, this is an old lie that Libertas spread.
European commissioners work for Europe only, and any commissioner that is seen as favouring his own country is warned/suspended.

Actually I said that, not bijapos.

Iwasfrozen

FutureTaoiseach wrote:

Actually I said that, not bijapos

Whatever, answer the question.

FutureTaoiseach

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Irish Commissioners do not serve Irish interests, this is an old lie that Libertas spread.
European commissioners work for Europe only, and any commissioner that is seen as favouring his own country is warned/suspended.

That's the theory, but in practice, history will testify that having an Irish Commissioner helped secure a positive outcome for Ireland in terms of structural-funds when McSharry was our Commissioner, just as having McCreevy on the Commission opposing Tax Commissioner Laslo Kovacs' plan for a CCCTB (Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base) has helped force the EU to at least shelve the latter plan. Theory and practice are not always one and the same.

PHB

Em, thats bs about McCreevy. He's just not that important. Indeed, he's extremely disliked in Brussels.

CCCTB was opposed because a ****load of EU countries don't want it. Even if the Commission proposed it, they'd be told where to go, because it requires unaminity to change it.

free to prosper

We're having a rerun of the vote on the exact same Lisbon Treaty on October 2 - what a travesty of democracy.

The Wall Street Journal was correct when it said (26/6/09), 'In some countries they rig votes, in the European Union they repeat votes to get the desired result.'

The only description I call this act is Mugabesque.

The assorted Yesmen of our failed Government have helped run the economy into the ground, yet still think we will listen to them - as they call for a transfer of power from the people of Ireland to EU institutions. All I can say to Brian Cowen is, 'we may be broke, but we're not stupid.'

This is the exact same Treaty of Lisbon we voted on last year.

The UK's Gordon Brown has said, 'The Protocol will clarify but not change either the content or the application of the Treaty of Lisbon”.

I'm voting NO for the democratic good of Ireland and of Europe.

bijapos

OP: That poll is swinging dangerously towards a 55:45 NO vote. Might need to scrap it and have a new poll(s) till we get the 'correct' result.:D

FutureTaoiseach

PHB wrote: »

Em, thats bs about McCreevy. He's just not that important. Indeed, he's extremely disliked in Brussels.

CCCTB was opposed because a ****load of EU countries don't want it. Even if the Commission proposed it, they'd be told where to go, because it requires unaminity to change it.

Then why does Commissioner Kovacs claim to have the support of 2/3rds of member states for it?