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

PopeBuckfastXVI

O'Morris wrote: »

What's your source for this?

Here's the head of the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland speaking last year:

Mr. Paul Rellis, Managing Director of Microsoft Ireland and President of the American Chamber of Commerce was this morning’s witness at the Oireachtas Sub-Committee on Ireland’s Future in the EU. (enclosed Mr Rellis' opening statement)

Speaking at the meeting, Mr Rellis gave his perspectives on what he considered the effects of the Lisbon Treaty result for the business sector in Ireland;
"While respecting views of the voters in Ireland, I think that the "no” vote has sent a strongly negative signal of the intent not only to our European counterparts but also to the many multinational companies who locate in Ireland because of the access our location and our participation in EU affairs provides, to Europe’s 460 million consumers."

Source
http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=10157&&CatID=36

Here's another statement from the Chamber

News : Irish Last Updated: Apr 24, 2009 - 5:31:05 PM

Lisbon Treaty: Ireland’s membership of the EU underpins over 300,000 jobs within US multinationals
By Finfacts Team
Dec 12, 2008 - 5:57:27 AM

Email this article
Printer friendly page

US chip giant Intel is Ireland's largest industrial employer. Since 1989, Intel has invested over $7 billion transforming the 360 acre former stud farm campus in Leixlip, Co. Kildare into a key manufacturing centre for the US company.

Lisbon Treaty:The American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland said on Thursday that Ireland’s membership of the EU underpins over 300,000 jobs within US multinationals. The Chamber which represents the interests of US multinationals in Ireland welcomed the decision by Government to hold a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

“This removes the uncertainty created by the No vote last July, we now have direction and the opportunity to address the concerns of the electorate which resulted in the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty”,said Joanne Richardson, Chief Executive of the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland

Source
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1015514.shtml

Here's Pat Crotty of the SFA

Crotty added, “the Lisbon Treaty will safeguard our low corporate tax regime, our attractiveness as a destination for foreign direct investment and our flexible labour market. Ireland maintains a veto on EU tax policy and on decisions related to foreign direct investment, along with other sensitive social policy areas. The multinational sector as well as being an important creator of jobs in Ireland in its own right is also critically important to the rest of the economy, as multinationals drive economic growth and contribute to domestic demand, which is essential for all other domestically trading small businesses.”

Source
http://www.sfa.ie/Sectors/SFA/SFA.nsf/vPages/Press_Centre~sfa-lisbon-treaty-vote-yes-09-06-2008?OpenDocument

Business leaders want us to say 'Yes' to Lisbon, let's be absolutely clear about that.

sink

O'Morris wrote: »

What's your source for this?

http://www.amcham.ie/article.cfm?idarticle=642

The American Chamber of Commerce represents pretty much all large American multinationals in Ireland and they're calling for a yes vote.

asti_mivec

I'm very worried that there is even a possibility that this could get a Yes vote.

I do not like the way Europe is heading and therefore I think that it is time that we stop giving away any power to the Europeans who like the Americans are really starting to show their true money making colours.

These people stop at nothing to get their own way (hence the second vote on an unchanged treaty by us, let alone the French and Dutch), and as corrupt as the Irish state is, I feel that Europe is just as bad if not worse and we have more chance of making sweeping changes here rather than on a European forum.

I particularly don't like the idea that we retain our "neutrality" even though we will be obliged to increase our military spending to help the EDA as part of the treaty.

I also do not like the way the QMV will essentially give the majority of power to the 4 largest countries - and also probably the 4 who stand to gain most from more war - while so many laws will be passed by an unelected council.

I really think that we should be moving away from all things European in time and this is the perfect way to start that trend.

So many other countries should stand up and take more notice when we vote a resounding NO to this madness!

If the above aren't reasons enough then the simple fact that our government are supporting this so vehemently, while failing to provide the voters with the Pro's and Con's of this treaty, should be enough to make people more than skeptical.

PopeBuckfastXVI

I'm very worried about the possibility that this could get a 'no' vote. Every business organisation, union, Farmers association and almost every political party are calling for a yes vote. They have done the studies and they know this is a good deal for Ireland, and more to the point, they are terrified about what a 'No' will mean for Ireland as an investment location.

Markets hate uncertainty, we owe much of our current (yes even when you consider the recession) prosperity to the ability of businesses to 'do business' with Europe, as rock solid members of the EU. The leaders of our local branches of multinationals can sell Ireland, as again, rock solid EU members. We would be throwing all of that out the window.

Ourselves alone dancing at the crossroads is all well and good, but it won't pay the mortgage, as we found out to our detriment in the 1950's and 60's. Call it scaremongering if you like, I just call it realism.

The plus's of the Treaty have been dealt with all over this forum, but I also think it's worth examining who is calling for what.

Virtually every single organisation that is involved in creating and maintaining jobs. IBEC, SFA, Unions, American Chamber of Commerce, IFA etc is calling for a Yes.

Against who? Communists like Joe Higgins and People Before Profit? Rabid isolationist Nationalists like Sinn Féin?

This decision should be a f*cking no-brainer.

tonycascarino

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I'm very worried about the possibility that this could get a 'no' vote. Every business organisation, union, Farmers association and almost every political party are calling for a yes vote. They have done the studies and they know this is a good deal for Ireland, and more to the point, they are terrified about what a 'No' will mean for Ireland as an investment location.

Markets hate uncertainty, we owe much of our current (yes even when you consider the recession) prosperity to the ability of businesses to 'do business' with Europe, as rock solid members of the EU. The leaders of our local branches of multinationals can sell Ireland, as again, rock solid EU members. We would be throwing all of that out the window.

Ourselves alone dancing at the crossroads is all well and good, but it won't pay the mortgage, as we found out to our detriment in the 1950's and 60's. Call it scaremongering if you like, I just call it realism.

The plus's of the Treaty have been dealt with all over this forum, but I also think it's worth examining who is calling for what.

Virtually every single organisation that is involved in creating and maintaining jobs. IBEC, SFA, Unions, American Chamber of Commerce, IFA etc is calling for a Yes.

Against who? Communists like Joe Higgins and People Before Profit? Rabid isolationist Nationalists like Sinn Féin?

This decision should be a f*cking no-brainer.

You forgot to mention that Fianna Failure are calling for this Treaty too and of course they know what's good for Ireland.;)

alan4cult

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I'm very worried about the possibility that this could get a 'no' vote. Every business organisation, union, Farmers association and almost every political party are calling for a yes vote. They have done the studies and they know this is a good deal for Ireland, and more to the point, they are terrified about what a 'No' will mean for Ireland as an investment location.

I do not listen to businesses/political parties telling what I should vote for, same as I don't listen to the car dealer who says car sales are up and developers who say house prices are recovering. I myself will be voting no, because I voted no the last time on the basis of reduced weighted voting.

PopeBuckfastXVI

tonycascarino wrote: »

You forgot to mention that Fianna Failure are calling for this Treaty too and of course they know what's good for Ireland.;)

Fianna Fail are corrupt, visionless twats.

The main opposition i.e. Labour & FG are also calling for a Yes.

Again, along with Unions, Business Leaders, Farmers Associations etc.

PopeBuckfastXVI

alan4cult wrote: »

I do not listen to businesses/political parties telling what I should vote for, same as I don't listen to the car dealer who says car sales are up and developers who say house prices are recovering. I myself will be voting no, because I voted no the last time on the basis of reduced weighted voting.

If maintaining influence in the EU is what you want, then a No vote is not the way to go about it to be honest...

Spiritoftheseventies

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

If maintaining influence in the EU is what you want, then a No vote is not the way to go about it to be honest...

how many lisbon threads now. very confusing!

Holsten

I'll be voting no, just like last time.

alan4cult

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

If maintaining influence in the EU is what you want, then a No vote is not the way to go about it to be honest...

Reduced influence you mean with regards to our lost veto and vote weighting. I'll wait till something better comes along, to be honest....

Spiritoftheseventies

Holsten wrote: »

I'll be voting no, just like last time.

btw a small vote. isnt a vote a private thing. maybe I'm being fussy here but only voting once and thats at the ballot box.

tonycascarino

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Fianna Fail are corrupt, visionless twats.

The main opposition i.e. Labour & FG are also calling for a Yes.

Again, along with Unions, Business Leaders, Farmers Associations etc.

Labour are insignificant for this campaign. I think it's rather embarrassing for Eamon Gilmore to be at the forefront of the YES campaign after saying to the nation after the last No vote that the Treaty was dead & this decision from the people should be respected by the government & those in Brussels etc. As for what those other leaders are calling for...put simply I have a mind of my own.

oscarBravo

alan4cult wrote: »

I'll wait till something better comes along, to be honest....

What makes you so sure something better will?

asti_mivec wrote: »

These people stop at nothing to get their own way...

Who are "these people"?

sink

alan4cult wrote: »

I myself will be voting no, because I voted no the last time on the basis of reduced weighted voting.

Our voting weight in the Council remains almost exactly the same under the new QMV system. We loose a little power to block legislation (along with every other country) but we gain power to push legislation through. There are no changes in the parliament that have not already happened, the Lisbon treaty will simply enshrine these changes in the treaties. What other voting weight are you referring to?

solice

asti_mivec wrote: »

I'm very worried that there is even a possibility that this could get a Yes vote.

I do not like the way Europe is heading and therefore I think that it is time that we stop giving away any power to the Europeans who like the Americans are really starting to show their true money making colours.

These people stop at nothing to get their own way (hence the second vote on an unchanged treaty by us, let alone the French and Dutch), and as corrupt as the Irish state is, I feel that Europe is just as bad if not worse and we have more chance of making sweeping changes here rather than on a European forum.

If you dont like the way Europe is heading (whatever that means) and you think they are as corrupt as our govrnment then why dont you vote yes and then petition the Irish government to leave the European Union. As things stand at present there is no mechanism in place that would allow a country leave the union, adopting the Lisbon treaty will put that provision in place.

PopeBuckfastXVI

alan4cult wrote: »

Reduced influence you mean with regards to our lost veto and vote weighting. I'll wait till something better comes along, to be honest....

Oh yes, because EU Treaties negotiated painstakingly over many years by 27 different countries with 27 different objectives, bottom lines and non negotiable stumbling blocks, just come along all the time, especially when the very people who actually negotiate these things on our behalf have been told 'to hell with your recommendations boys, we've no interest', and of course whenever it does come along, naturally it will be 'better'...

alan4cult

oscarBravo wrote: »

What makes you so sure something better will?

Nothing, but it's better than something worse coming along e.g. YES majority to Lisbon

alan4cult

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Oh yes, because EU Treaties negotiated painstakingly over many years by 27 different countries with 27 different objectives, bottom lines and non negotiable stumbling blocks, just come along all the time, especially when the very people who actually negotiate these things on our behalf have been told 'to hell with your recommendations boys, we've no interest', and of course whenever it does come along, naturally it will be 'better'...

I'm not talking about a "new" Treaty. I'm just looking for amendments.

PopeBuckfastXVI

alan4cult wrote: »

I'm not talking about a "new" Treaty. I'm just looking for amendments.

It will be scrapped if we vote no a second time, be under no illusions.

PopeBuckfastXVI

alan4cult wrote: »

Nothing, but it's better than something worse coming along e.g. YES majority to Lisbon

Out of curiosity, what would be your QMV formula?

Spiritoftheseventies

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It will be scrapped if we vote no a second time, be under no illusions.

what was the quote on six one news yesterday. about not a comma being changed.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

what was the quote on six one news yesterday. about not a comma being changed.

I didn't see it, what was it?

Spiritoftheseventies

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I didn't see it, what was it?

to paraphrase, not a comma or full stop had been changed. said by some one from no side.

FutureTaoiseach

solice wrote: »

If you dont like the way Europe is heading (whatever that means) and you think they are as corrupt as our govrnment then why dont you vote yes and then petition the Irish government to leave the European Union. As things stand at present there is no mechanism in place that would allow a country leave the union, adopting the Lisbon treaty will put that provision in place.

I don't think us no voters want to leave the EU per se. On the contrary, many of us consider ourselves ardent pro-Europeans. The question then becomes what kind of Europe we want. Speaking-personally, despite my ardent criticisms of the old-boy network and sleaze in the EU as hidden by the suppression of the Galvin Report on EP corruption of the expenses-system, I do not want the EU to fail. I want the Lisbon referendum to fail, in part because I want Ireland and Europe - and indeed the EU - to succeed. We don't want to leave the EU. We want to fight for democratic reform from within. I would make an analogy with those within the GAA who voted down the changes to Rule 21. Should they leave? I do not believe the conscience of the Irish people will permit them to vote to foist on the French and Dutch peoples that which they rejected in another guise. It is imporant to understand that Lisbon is different from the other treaties above all because for the first time, the Irish people are being asked to foist provisions, 95% of which were rejected in 2 other countries, on those 2 nations with the collusion of their own politicians. It represents a dangerous crossing of the Rubicon for the EU.

solice

bayviewclose wrote: »

to paraphrase, not a comma or full stop had been changed. said by some one from no side.

And there hasnt as far as I know. If a comma had been changed then every country would have to ratify it again (be that by referendum or parliment according to their democratic constitutions). What has happened is that Ireland has been given legally binding guarantees on a number of aspects including taxation and neutrality.

alan4cult

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what would be your QMV formula?

I would prefer the Penrose Method, although I must say it is a little more compicated.

PopeBuckfastXVI

alan4cult wrote: »

I would prefer the Penrose Method, although I must say it is a little more compicated.

Have you measured the differences? Would you mind posting a summary please?

Edit, just to say, it's my understanding that this was proposed by Poland, slightly backed by the Czech Republic, and was opposed by everyone else, including Ireland.

It's highly unlikely that this would be adopted in any future treaty either, so perhaps the current proposed double Majority QMV under Lisbon, is the best compromise available? I mean the Poles eventually agreed to it, and they were the only real proponents of Penrose (the Czechs stated they would not back a veto on the matter).

BlitzKrieg

voting yes.


I have discussed the treaty for almost 2 years now here and on other forums (and the constitution and nice etc before it.) and I find no issue with the document itself.

Aside from that arguments against the treaty fall under *they could be evil* arguments about actions the EU would take against Irish interest. Of which I would argue there is no precedent, Denmark went through the same series of garuntees we did and the EU didnt break them. The issues at stake are not ones anyone in the EU wants to force onto ireland.

Finally it doesnt help that the most vocal people against Lisbon on this forum show time and time again that they either dont know anything about the treaties (the recent *france voted no to nice* post in another thread and the constent inability to read article 48) or they dont know the institutions of the EU (someone here keeps getting them mixed up and arguing points based on this mix up and still hasnt apologised for his own mistake...)

alan4cult

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Have you measured the differences? Would you mind posting a summary please?

A summary can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union
See table on right and look how the votes tighten up for large countries.