My reasons for Voting No

KINGVictor

To Lisbon 11

1.I believe that The EU is consistently going outside it's scope of economic integration and increasingly becoming a political sham.

2.I believe that the EU is intrinsically made up of two axis -the franco/german and the Anglo,all fighting for political superiority at the expense of other countries.

3.I am against the imposition of Immigration and procurement directives on member countries as I believe Ireland would suffer a lot from implementation of such.

4.I also detest the manner in which is lack of consultation with the citizenry and inherently decisions made by brussels affects everyone of us in our day to day life.

5.Making Ireland vote again on the same treaty it rejected.



Open to discussion guys.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Thanks for that KV

I just want to respond to a couple of your points.

1. The EU has always been political. From day one it's been about building 'an ever closer union' of the people of Europe. However if you are against Europe as a political entity, then yes you are correct to oppose Lisbon, and probably should have opposed Nice and every other EU treaty. I'm interested to know if you consider yourself 'anti-EU' I would place this reason for voting 'no' as a generic 'anti-EU' reason.

2. I'm not sure I share your view of the Axes, especially if you are including Ireland in the Anglo(phonic?) axis. If you are talking about the UK on it's own, you are really then talking about the difficulty the UK has with sharing sovereignty with anyone. It's certainly nothing to do with Lisbon.

4. Do you feel the Dáil consults with the citizenry better than, say, the European parliament? Again, I feel this is more of a generic argument against the EU, or certainly it's institutions, than against Lisbon. In fact Lisbon allows the citizenry to have direct influence on the Commission through the petition initiative. For sure the Commission don't have to act on it, but surely they'll have to justify why they don't. It also empowers the EP in relation to the Commission, thereby increasing the channels from the Citizen to the EU (as the EP draws it's authority directly from the Citizens of Europe).

5. That was the decision of the Irish government, and no-one else. It's not really an argument against the Lisbon treaty, as much as it is an argument against the powers vested in the Irish government by the Irish constitution. A good rule of thumb might be to check if your arguments were relevant for the first referendum, and if they are still relevant for this one. I think any arguments that are not relevant to both referenda are probably more easily dismissed as side issues, arguments relevant to both force your opponents to tackle them head on.

3. I'm not touching the immigration issue

I may have you wrong, but based on the tone and content of your reasons, I'm guessing you're probably anti-EU, from a political if not economic perspective, and given that, you are probably not open to convincing of the merits of Lisbon. Voting 'No' to Lisbon is the most appropriate action for someone who is against the entire concept of a political European Union.

FutureTaoiseach

I share that analysis though not so much on Pt 4. I am unhappy with the perceived impact of the ECB interest-rate on the Irish property-bubble, but in general, I regard the EU as a good thing but in danger of losing its way. Lisbon is illegitimate in my eyes both because it is unchanged since the Irish people rejected it, and containing 95% of the provisions of the twice rejected EU Constitution (France/Holland). I share your concerns on the interference of the EU (especially the ECJ through judgements like Metock/Chen) in our immigration-laws with respect to loopholes like citizenship/residency (since addressed by the 2004 referendum) and marriages-of-convenience. I want the EU to continue and to succeed, but it must be a democratic-Europe, guided by public-opinion in terms of evolution.

marco_polo

KINGVictor wrote: »

5.Making Ireland vote again on the same treaty it rejected.

If one applied the same logic to general elections would you hold the same view?

Max Power1

marco_polo wrote: »

If one applied the same logic to general elections would you hold the same view?

General election at the end of a term in office is not a re run of the same election.

marco_polo

Max Power1 wrote: »

General election at the end of a term in office is not a re run of the same election.

Both are snapshots of the opinion of the electorate as a particular moment in time, So if the electorate is can change there mind on the direction of Government then ........

It is not a requirement of a referendum to have a different question every time.

Max Power1

marco_polo wrote: »

Both are snapshots of the opinion of the electorate as a particular moment in time, So if the electorate is can change there mind on the direction of Government then ........

It is not a requirement of a referendum to have a different question every time.

Yes but the analogy fails- they are not one and the same. Each general election presents a different list of candidates.

This is a shameless re-run of an already rejected treaty with no changes. I hope that the electorate realise this and vote no AGAIN. Maybe this time they will listen - i fear they may not.

brianthebard

marco_polo wrote: »

If one applied the same logic to general elections would you hold the same view?

That's a pretty weak argument tbh. If we're going to deal with analogies, its more like the opposition which lost the general election telling the newly elected government they have to run the election again, because they didn't get the result they wanted.

Dinner

-Howya Mick, would ye like a cup of tea?

-No thanks, there's no rich tea biscuits.

-Jim just got back from the shop with some. So would ye like a cup?

-HOW DARE YOU ASK ME AGAIN I'VE ALREADY GIVEN MY ANSWER DIDN'T I, WHY DON'T YOU LISTEN TO ME.

-Jaysus, relax mick I just thought that since the circumstances sorrounding your objection changed that you might reconsider.

-NEVAR! Don't ever ask me that question again.

ixtlan

brianthebard wrote: »

That's a pretty weak argument tbh. If we're going to deal with analogies, its more like the opposition which lost the general election telling the newly elected government they have to run the election again, because they didn't get the result they wanted.

Of course one can amusingly point out that that is exactly what the opposition are saying!

And many of the No-campaigners, and indeed many of the yes campaigners too, also seem to want another general election now, even though one is not due until 2012.

Can I take it that you are strongly of the opinion that the FF/Green government should continue to the end of their 5-year term?

Ix.

Scofflaw

brianthebard wrote: »

That's a pretty weak argument tbh. If we're going to deal with analogies, its more like the opposition which lost the general election telling the newly elected government they have to run the election again, because they didn't get the result they wanted.

And what it's a lot more like is a negotiation - the government asks us to let them ratify Lisbon, we say No, they ask why not, address some of the reasons, and ask again.

Bizarrely enough, the government thinks Lisbon is in the best interests of the country, and would rather we allowed them to ratify it rather than going back to the negotiating tables and getting what might be a worse deal.

cordially,
Scofflaw

brianthebard

ixtlan wrote: »

Of course one can amusingly point out that that is exactly what the opposition are saying!

And many of the No-campaigners, and indeed many of the yes campaigners too, also seem to want another general election now, even though one is not due until 2012.

Can I take it that you are strongly of the opinion that the FF/Green government should continue to the end of their 5-year term?

Ix.

I think you've become lost in the analogy quagmire, somewhere way off base....

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

And what it's a lot more like is a negotiation - the government asks us to let them ratify Lisbon, we say No, they ask why not, address some of the reasons, and ask again.

Bizarrely enough, the government thinks Lisbon is in the best interests of the country, and would rather we allowed them to ratify it rather than going back to the negotiating tables and getting what might be a worse deal.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So basically, we elect a Govt. for a 5 year term to do as they see fit. Basically, barring bye election defeats and a military coup, there is no way of getting rid of FF unless they decide to call a GE?

PS. It isn't very democratic is it? Ignoring Local and EU elections?

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

So basically, we elect a Govt. for a 5 year term to do as they see fit. Basically, barring bye election defeats and a military coup, there is no way of getting rid of FF unless they decide to call a GE?

A couple of other routes, at least:

1. Vote of no confidence.

2. The Greens walking out of coalition.

3. The sort of levels of passive protest and non-cooperation that make the country essentially ungovernable.

Other than that, yes, they're in until they come out. We don't elect them to "do as they see fit", though, because they need to be re-elected at the end of their term. However, we do require them, let's face it, to be able to take unpopular decisions, no? In fact, had they done so over the last decade, we'd be in better shape.

PS. It isn't very democratic is it? Ignoring Local and EU elections?

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, the local elections elect councillors, and the euro elections elect MEPs. If you take the UK, the Lib Dems win a lot of Council seats, but not many Westminster ones, so the two are different. Also, FF only lost 40 councillors, which is the same as they lost at the last local elections in 2004 - and most of the party faithful I've ever met reckon they could have avoided those losses if they hadn't dictated candidates from party HQ. Scary, but may be true!

cordially,
Scofflaw

brianthebard

To bring it back on topic, OP how do you think points one and two could be addressed to improve the situation to your liking? Would it be possible?

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

A couple of other routes, at least:

1. Vote of no confidence.

2. The Greens walking out of coalition.

3. The sort of levels of passive protest and non-cooperation that make the country essentially ungovernable.

Other than that, yes, they're in until they come out. We don't elect them to "do as they see fit", though, because they need to be re-elected at the end of their term. However, we do require them, let's face it, to be able to take unpopular decisions, no? In fact, had they done so over the last decade, we'd be in better shape.



Well, not to put too fine a point on it, the local elections elect councillors, and the euro elections elect MEPs. If you take the UK, the Lib Dems win a lot of Council seats, but not many Westminster ones, so the two are different. Also, FF only lost 40 councillors, which is the same as they lost at the last local elections in 2004 - and most of the party faithful I've ever met reckon they could have avoided those losses if they hadn't dictated candidates from party HQ. Scary, but may be true!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Indeed, was more a general point. We'd need the Independents as well, No? Berties political legacy he left us!

Back on topic, yes we elect them to do as they see fit, to a certain degree.
I'd say there is far more anger over education/health cuts and tax/pension levies, both passed and in the future, than you'll ever see over Lisbon.

PopeBuckfastXVI

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed, was more a general point. We'd need the Independents as well, No? Berties political legacy he left us!

Back on topic, yes we elect them to do as they see fit, to a certain degree.
I'd say there is far more anger over education/health cuts and tax/pension levies, both passed and in the future, than you'll ever see over Lisbon.

That's not 'on-topic' at all! Most of these posts belong in the 'politics' forum, and the rest belong in the 'why are we voting again?' thread to be honest!

Scofflaw

KINGVictor wrote: »

To Lisbon 11

1.I believe that The EU is consistently going outside it's scope of economic integration and increasingly becoming a political sham.

As has been pointed out, the EU was always political in intent. The Common Market is intended to serve the political purpose of bringing the people of Europe closer together, and always was.

2.I believe that the EU is intrinsically made up of two axis -the franco/german and the Anglo,all fighting for political superiority at the expense of other countries.

There's a lot more than that, since there are all kinds of different alliances on different things. We're with the UK on JHA matters, we're against them on farming. Also, the different axes would exist without the EU!

3.I am against the imposition of Immigration and procurement directives on member countries as I believe Ireland would suffer a lot from implementation of such.

Procurement?

4.I also detest the manner in which is lack of consultation with the citizenry and inherently decisions made by brussels affects everyone of us in our day to day life.

Certainly we appear to have no control over our government when it goes to Brussels - and that control is the heart of the German judgement. However, as the German judgement points out, that's a matter for the internal workings of the member state.

5.Making Ireland vote again on the same treaty it rejected.

I don't have a problem with it at all. Unless the referendum vote is essentially just a coin-flipping exercise, where the previous winning side fears a reversal of its gains through the operation of chance, I can't see it as 'undemocratic'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

brianthebard

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't have a problem with it at all. Unless the referendum vote is essentially just a coin-flipping exercise, where the previous winning side fears a reversal of its gains through the operation of chance, I can't see it as 'undemocratic'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I get the distinct impression you wouldn't feel that way if the Yes vote had succeeded first time around and we were still voting again. Tbh people need to drop the act, I've yet to see anyone who voted No welcome a second referendum, nor a single Yes voter state that its a bad idea. Each is as partial as the other and to pretend otherwise is silly.

marco_polo

brianthebard wrote: »

I get the distinct impression you wouldn't feel that way if the Yes vote had succeeded first time around and we were still voting again. Tbh people need to drop the act, I've yet to see anyone who voted No welcome a second referendum, nor a single Yes voter state that its a bad idea. Each is as partial as the other and to pretend otherwise is silly.

Nobody is suggesting that Yes supporters would be happy about a holding second vote in such circumstances, but the critical difference that you have missed is we would not be running around screaming 'undemocratic', 'undemocratic', when it is plainly not true.

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

... Certainly we appear to have no control over our government when it goes to Brussels - and that control is the heart of the German judgement. However, as the German judgement points out, that's a matter for the internal workings of the member state...

KINGVictor was expressing concern about decisions "made by brussels" -- by, not in. This is part of the alienation that some people feel about the EU; they see Brussels as something apart, something of an outside authority, rather than seeing it as us in partnership with our friends.

I think Scofflaw thinks in terms of decisions made in Brussels by the representatives of the member states, but correctly identifies a problem: our government does not do a good enough job of telling us about the positions it has taken and the part it has played in arriving at those decisions. In fact, it compounds the problem by choosing sometimes to blame the EU for things which are unpopular with some voters.

Perhaps we need a control function such as the Germans courts seem to be imposing on their government. No, delete "perhaps"; we do need it in order to keep our politicians honest (or should that be make our politicians honest?).

Scofflaw

brianthebard wrote: »

I get the distinct impression you wouldn't feel that way if the Yes vote had succeeded first time around and we were still voting again. Tbh people need to drop the act, I've yet to see anyone who voted No welcome a second referendum, nor a single Yes voter state that its a bad idea. Each is as partial as the other and to pretend otherwise is silly.

I wouldn't welcome a second referendum if the first had been a Yes, but I wouldn't see it as undemocratic either. I voted No at Nice 1, and had no problems with Nice 2 being 'undemocratic'. I certainly wouldn't vote No, having voted Yes, simply because I was voting again.

I have no problem with a No voter saying "it's unfair", to which I can cheerfully respond "true, but them's the breaks". Unfortunately, No voters don't say that, they say "it's undemocratic...unconstitutional...an outrage...treason...blah forced blah...", to which I say "rubbish", because none of those things are true. It's unfair, and it's happening because the government have the power to call referendums, and they think ratifying Lisbon is the right thing to do. That's all there is to it - the Yes side have that advantage, that's all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

KINGVictor was expressing concern about decisions "made by brussels" -- by, not in. This is part of the alienation that some people feel about the EU; they see Brussels as something apart, something of an outside authority, rather than seeing it as us in partnership with our friends.

I think Scofflaw thinks in terms of decisions made in Brussels by the representatives of the member states, but correctly identifies a problem: our government does not do a good enough job of telling us about the positions it has taken and the part it has played in arriving at those decisions. In fact, it compounds the problem by choosing sometimes to blame the EU for things which are unpopular with some voters.

The Water Framework Directive is the best recent example, although the Data Retention Directive is a good example too.

Perhaps we need a control function such as the Germans courts seem to be imposing on their government. No, delete "perhaps"; we do need it in order to keep our politicians honest (or should that be make our politicians honest?).

We do, I think. The subsidiarity mechanism (yellow and orange cards) in Lisbon (and not in the European Constitution) is a start, but only a start. Given the whip system, it's unlikely that the Dáil will vote against what the government proposes (the Seanad might, on recent form), but the fact that the Dail generally, rather than the government specifically, has to be informed of proposed legislation, and the fact that the Council of Ministers will have to vote in public, does mean that Lisbon provides us with certain control systems that our Republic fails to provide.

Overall, though, that's a telling point you've put your finger on - decisions are taken in Brussels, not by Brussels, and anyone who thinks the latter is giving altogether too much credit to the Belgian government.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

brianthebard wrote: »

I've yet to see anyone who voted No welcome a second referendum

You've yet to see Turgon so.

I think Scofflaw has summed it up, it's not too fair on you, it's downright annoying, in fact, but then, it is how it is.

To respond to the general argument made by some, that if it had been 'yes' would the government have given us another referendum. I can only ask, if the government was against Lisbon, would we have gotten a referendum in the first place?

Hobo Sapiens

brianthebard wrote: »

That's a pretty weak argument tbh. If we're going to deal with analogies, its more like the opposition which lost the general election telling the newly elected government they have to run the election again, because they didn't get the result they wanted.

On the contrary, it's more like the outgoing gov. losing an election but running the election again until it gets the 'right result'.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Hobo Sapiens wrote: »

On the contrary, it's more like the outgoing gov. losing an election but running the election again until it gets the 'right result'.

It's not like any of these things. The analogies just don't work.

The government have the constitutional power to hold the second referendum. No constitutional power exists to do the things in the analogies, therefore they are just not analogous.

Apologies to the OP, there are several open threads for this discussion, could one of the mods move it there, or start a new one?

Tar.Aldarion

brianthebard wrote: »

I get the distinct impression you wouldn't feel that way if the Yes vote had succeeded first time around and we were still voting again. Tbh people need to drop the act, I've yet to see anyone who voted No welcome a second referendum, nor a single Yes voter state that its a bad idea. Each is as partial as the other and to pretend otherwise is silly.

A lot of no voters said to me that they were concerned about certain things before the election, so they were voting no because they wanted a better deal, a clarification that certain things could not happen or whatever. So, say some of them have had their fears allayed in the last year, I think they should get the chance to decide. Especially as it seemed a big part of what a lot of no voters wanted in the first place. And after the first election, I would be happy with it coming back fro another vote no matter teh result, because so many people on both sides did not know what they were voting for. The amount of people here in sligo basing their vote on sligo cancer treatment issues, or just voting yes without being able to tell me why is enough of a reason for it to be brought back for me. So many silly reasons on both sides, governments fault for not making it clear I suppose.

FutureTaoiseach

Imagine how the American people would feel if they were told they had to vote again on whether Obama should be president, and that they had only voted for him because 'they didn't understand it'. They would feel insulted. And so should we because Lisbon has not changed in any way. Let's be consistent here.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Imagine how the American people would feel if they were told they had to vote again on whether Obama should be president, and that they had only voted for him because 'they didn't understand it'. They would feel insulted. And so should we because Lisbon has not changed in any way. Let's be consistent here.

There's nothing inconsistent in what we're saying, at least partly because we're not voting in an election. Elections are the cornerstone of representative democracy - the vital setting of the whole system of government. Referendums are not, because we're not a direct democracy - they're answers to Yes/No questions asked (in our system) by the government. That's all they are, and that's all they do - answer the one question that was asked with a Yes or a No. No nuances, no subtlety, no "this is really about x or y" or "we want a change of policy and/or government" - just a single answer, to the question asked, and to no other. They're not direct government by the people's vote.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ixtlan

In response to the oft repeated "if we voted yes we wouldn't vote again", I say once more.

Yes... we will...

There is always another treaty to be negotiated and ratified. If you vote yes, progress continues and you should get in contact with your MEPs and TDs to influence the direction.

I assume people said the same thing after Nice 1, in which case why are we here again after the successful Nice 2?

Ix.

turgon

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You've yet to see Turgon so.

Indeed.

I find it funny watching the debate on Boards here in light of my position on the Treaty, having changed from a No to a Yes. I didnt change my position because of the guarantees or some such, I changed because I realized the Treaty was a lot better and that what id been saying was stupid. What I find funny is that my view on most things - the legitimacy of a second referendum, the type democracy we need in Europe etc - have all changed as well. Which makes me personally believe that people don't vote No because they think a second referendum is bad, rather, they think a second referendum is bad because theyre voting No.

ixtlan

turgon wrote: »

Indeed.

I find it funny watching the debate on Boards here in light of my position on the Treaty, having changed from a No to a Yes. I didnt change my position because of the guarantees or some such, I changed because I realized the Treaty was a lot better and that what id been saying was stupid. What I find funny is that my view on most things - the legitimacy of a second referendum, the type democracy we need in Europe etc - have all changed as well. Which makes me personally believe that people don't vote No because they think a second referendum is bad, rather, they think a second referendum is bad because theyre voting No.

Actually since it's relevant to the thread, would you like to go into a little more detail about your conversion?

I am quite interested. It seems very rare that anyone changes their mind on either side, or perhaps what I mean is that it's rare for someone who has debated the treaty to change. I get the impression that even if there is a yes, it will come through some people voting who didn't vote before, and some changing their vote who really had not given it much consideration the first time around. I say that with respect to the No voters here, who are debating the issues and who have generally given it much consideration (though IMHO it's ill-guided).

Ix.

Tim Robbins

KINGVictor wrote: »

5.Making Ireland vote again on the same treaty it rejected.

There should never have been a referendum in the first place. It's just more waste of money to ask ignorant people to make decisions on things they don't understand.

KINGVictor

brianthebard wrote: »

To bring it back on topic, OP how do you think points one and two could be addressed to improve the situation to your liking? Would it be possible?

The answer in my opinion would be formulating a framework where the citizens of Europe are duely consulted before any proposals or policies are implemented.The current state of affairs is shambolic to say the least.

I still disagree with folks that say that say that the concept of the EU was not primarily of economic integration,I agree that it would be naive to think economic objectives can be realised without some measure of political will/structure but not when it would decide for us how many hours workers can work in a week ,how many immigrants we must allow into our country,overturning decisions of national supreme courts etc...such practises would only lead to its implosion.

I noticed that even the hardest supporters of the EU(in its current state) seem to be avoiding the Immigration point raised.I am not to sure whether immigration is part of the Lisbon treaty but what I know is that the future plans of the EU as regards immigration is frightening.In the Eu freedom of movement directive ,EU nationals and their family have the right to move to any country as long as they prove they are seeking employment.
The Eu has on numeruous occasions humiliated member countries trying to protect their boarders by overturning decisions made lawfully by National Immigration bodies.A classic example is the Surinder Singh route to Immigration.
http://webdb.lse.ac.uk/gender/Casefinaldetail.asp?id=118&pageno=7

This essentially means that if an Irish man is dating an illegal Immigrant in Ireland and the partner is deported from Ireland for commiting a crime ,they could go and live in The Uk and come back to Ireland in six months and live legally in this country .

There have been cases of fake marraiges in which Ireland made a complaint to the EU officially and up till today ..no concrete steps have be taken to put an end to it.

Currently there are plans to introduce BLUE cards for non-eu nationals that would enable them work anywhere in Europe.
The whole thing is just very overwhelming and the truth is that a lot of people are uncomfortable with it.The Eu is a splendid idea in economic terms but when it decided to start interfering in national matters,it becomes a nuinsance.

Daftendirekt

KINGVictor wrote: »

The answer in my opinion would be formulating a framework where the citizens of Europe are duely consulted before any proposals or policies are implemented.The current state of affairs is shambolic to say the least.

But isn't that the point of the Parliament? The people of the member states appoint representatives to speak for them. Granted, you seem to be favouring a system of direct democracy, but do you apply this to government at the national level as well? By which I mean, do you think a referendum should be held to pass every proposal the government puts forward?

turgon

ixtlan wrote: »

Actually since it's relevant to the thread, would you like to go into a little more detail about your conversion?

Well obviously when it comes to my switching from No to Yes on Lisbon, the biggest change has been myself, and by that I mean my outlook and what I value, rather than anything in the Treaty itself.

I originally voted No for two reasons. I outlined this in a letter to Micheal Martin (to which I received an extremely courteous reply):

1. The militarization of the EU
2. Not enough democracy introduced

Which, held in isolation, were, and possibly are, valid reasons to vote No. And by valid I mean I could quote the Treaty in my defense.

I have since realized the, taken as a whole, the changes the Treaty bring about are positive. For example, the fact that the Treaty doesn't go far enough with democracy, it is still more democratic than before.


There is the important issue here, though, and this is where I begin to theorize. Fundamentally, I believe that most No proponents aren't anti the Lisbon treaty for any reasons, rather, they are attracted only by the very idea of being anti the treaty and what it entails. "What redeems it is the idea only", as Joseph Conrad would say.

Ok, so what do I mean by this? Basically many people aren't anti the Treaty for tangible reasons, and all the reasons they give can be easily dismissed. Despite this, they continue to be against it. Take, for instance, the Coir group, who 2 weeks ago had a poster "EU, get you hands off our unborn," despite the fact the guarantees clearly outline that competency for abortion legislation lies with the national government.

Or consider the fact the most No voters think a second referendum is undemocratic, whereas most Yes voters don't. Most No voters think the EU is centralized and anti-democratic, most Yes voters dont. Theres lots of these things. I think that their position on these issues aren't shaped by logoi, but rather by the side of the debate they lie on. So fundamentally, I believe most No voters choose their position and then found reasons to support this position. I place my former self in this group, and I am embarrassed by that.

I'd like to go into more detail about this but I have to go.

P. Breathnach

KINGVictor wrote: »

... I still disagree with folks that say that say that the concept of the EU was not primarily of economic integration...

I think your credibility here would be greater if you showed any understanding of the history of the EU.

Scofflaw

KINGVictor wrote: »

The answer in my opinion would be formulating a framework where the citizens of Europe are duely consulted before any proposals or policies are implemented.The current state of affairs is shambolic to say the least.

I still disagree with folks that say that say that the concept of the EU was not primarily of economic integration,I agree that it would be naive to think economic objectives can be realised without some measure of political will/structure but not when it would decide for us how many hours workers can work in a week ,how many immigrants we must allow into our country,overturning decisions of national supreme courts etc...such practises would only lead to its implosion.

I noticed that even the hardest supporters of the EU(in its current state) seem to be avoiding the Immigration point raised.I am not to sure whether immigration is part of the Lisbon treaty but what I know is that the future plans of the EU as regards immigration is frightening.In the Eu freedom of movement directive ,EU nationals and their family have the right to move to any country as long as they prove they are seeking employment.
The Eu has on numeruous occasions humiliated member countries trying to protect their boarders by overturning decisions made lawfully by National Immigration bodies.A classic example is the Surinder Singh route to Immigration.
http://webdb.lse.ac.uk/gender/Casefinaldetail.asp?id=118&pageno=7

This essentially means that if an Irish man is dating an illegal Immigrant in Ireland and the partner is deported from Ireland for commiting a crime ,they could go and live in The Uk and come back to Ireland in six months and live legally in this country .

There have been cases of fake marraiges in which Ireland made a complaint to the EU officially and up till today ..no concrete steps have be taken to put an end to it.

Currently there are plans to introduce BLUE cards for non-eu nationals that would enable them work anywhere in Europe.
The whole thing is just very overwhelming and the truth is that a lot of people are uncomfortable with it.The Eu is a splendid idea in economic terms but when it decided to start interfering in national matters,it becomes a nuinsance.

The reason I didn't touch the immigration point is that long experience has taught me that if someone is opposed to immigration, then there is nothing to be gained by arguing with them about it.

For exampe:

I am not to sure whether immigration is part of the Lisbon treaty but what I know is that the future plans of the EU as regards immigration is frightening. In the Eu freedom of movement directive ,EU nationals and their family have the right to move to any country as long as they prove they are seeking employment.

Let me ramp up your fright a bit, then - under the freedom of movement principle (it's one of the founding principles of the EU), EU nationals have the right to move to any other EU country full stop. For stays over six months there are certain conditions, intended primarily to ensure that they are not a burden on the receiving state, but practically speaking, there are no barriers to immigration into the labour market from any EU state to any other, bar the accession states, which are still subject to certain restrictions.

Now, if you really don't like that, you're not ever going to be happy about the EU, because that free movement is one of the cornerstones of it. That's the long and the short of it, and any argument by me would boil down to trying to persuade you to be comfortable with that. Realistically, it's not something I feel anyone can persuade you out of - you'll either become comfortable with the idea, or not.

In fact, the level of such mobility is surprisingly small - far smaller than the US. We've been in an unusual position over the last five years, because we were one of the few member states to immediately open its labour market, and probably the fastest-growing economy in the EU. We thereby attracted disproportionately large influxes - over the next few years, with our economy shrinking for a while, and with the other member states opening their labour markets, that's going to change, and we'll drop back towards the norm for the EU, which is relatively little mobility. You might be interested in this study.

As I said, though, if you're not happy with immigration, it's extremely unlikely anyone can persuade you to be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

Scofflaw wrote: »

The reason I didn't touch the immigration point is that long experience has taught me that if someone is opposed to immigration, then there is nothing to be gained by arguing with them about it.

Ditto, it's completely emotional and can't be argued logically, at least not that I've seen.

Scofflaw

KINGVictor wrote: »

I still disagree with folks that say that say that the concept of the EU was not primarily of economic integration,I agree that it would be naive to think economic objectives can be realised without some measure of political will/structure but not when it would decide for us how many hours workers can work in a week ,how many immigrants we must allow into our country,overturning decisions of national supreme courts etc...such practises would only lead to its implosion.

This is the preamble to the Treaty of Rome, the treaty that founded the EEC:

Treaty establishing the European Economic Community

HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE GRAND DUCHESS OF LUXEMBOURG, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS,

DETERMINED to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples,

DECIDED to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action in eliminating the barriers which divide Europe,

DIRECTING their efforts to the essential purpose of constantly improving the living and working conditions of their peoples,

RECOGNISING that the removal of existing obstacles calls for concerted action in order to guarantee a steady expansion, a balanced trade and fair competition,

ANXIOUS to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and by mitigating the backwardness of the less favoured,

DESIROUS of contributing by means of a common commercial policy to the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade,

INTENDING to confirm the solidarity which binds Europe and overseas countries, and desiring to ensure the development of their prosperity, in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

RESOLVED to strengthen the safeguards of peace and liberty by establishing this combination of resources, and calling upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in their efforts,

HAVE DECIDED to create a European Economic Community

Note the prime aim there:

DETERMINED to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples,

That is a political intention, and it's the first one on the list. The second one puts forward economic and social progress by common action:

DECIDED to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action in eliminating the barriers which divide Europe,

Again, that's a political intention. The EU is not some kind of European Free Trade Area, and never has been.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Furious-Dave

I was just thinking there about the commissioner to the EU issue. KINGVictor, and other naysayers, are you aware that a 'No' vote is now a vote in favour of loosing our commissioner? The guarantee of keeping our commissioner is only valid if the Lisbon Treaty is passed, if it is not then we loose the commissioner under the Nice Treaty.

Anyone correct me please if I am wrong.

brianthebard

Scofflaw wrote: »

This is the preamble to the Treaty of Rome, the treaty that founded the EEC:



Note the prime aim there:



That is a political intention, and it's the first one on the list. The second one puts forward economic and social progress by common action:

I think that's very much open to interpretation, there is such a thing as an economic union. Besides which there's no mention of political intentions in that line that you quoted.

F-D, I'm fairly sure commissioners don't belong to member countries, and are not supposed to act in their nation's interests at the expense of others.

turgon

Yes under Nice rules we lose a commissioner for 1/3 of the time starting in 2014. In Lisbon 2 this is stopped.

brianthebard is also right, the commissioners are obliged to act in the interest of the EU as a whole. Which has two major repercussions: first that losing a commissioner isn't bad and secondly that the commission will never work properly if they are directly elected, as they will have a burden to please the folks back home.

Many, including myself, would prefer the Lisbon 1 scenario as it leads to less bureaucracy. At this stage they are making up positions for the commissioners because they really don't have enough jobs for them.


An interesting observation about this whole issue is that Libertas sought a No vote on the basis they wanted 27 commissioners; then subsequently stood for election to Europe on the basis they wanted a slimmed down commission.

Scofflaw

brianthebard wrote: »

I think that's very much open to interpretation, there is such a thing as an economic union. Besides which there's no mention of political intentions in that line that you quoted.

I don't know how it could be more explicit, frankly. If they had meant "economic union", that's what would be there - they haven't left it out anywhere else they meant it.

brianthebard wrote: »

F-D, I'm fairly sure commissioners don't belong to member countries, and are not supposed to act in their nation's interests at the expense of others.

Very much so:

The members of the Commission shall be chosen on the ground of their general competence and European commitment from persons whose independence is beyond doubt.

In carrying out its responsibilities, the Commission shall be completely independent. Without prejudice to Article 18(2), the members of the Commission shall neither seek nor take instructions from any Government or other institution, body, office or entity. They shall refrain from any action incompatible with their duties or the performance of their tasks.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Furious-Dave

brianthebard wrote: »

F-D, I'm fairly sure commissioners don't belong to member countries, and are not supposed to act in their nation's interests at the expense of others.

Oh I know that. The whole commissioner issue was just a ploy used by the Libertas and friends as they knew it would gain support. The Irish people in general don't like the idea of loosing anything. So those who did not understand the role of the commissioners, or that we'd loose the commissioner anyway under Nice, got all up in arms over it.

brianthebard

Furious-Dave wrote: »

Oh I know that. The whole commissioner issue was just a ploy used by the Libertas and friends as they knew it would gain support. The Irish people in general don't like the idea of loosing anything. So those who did not understand the role of the commissioners, or that we'd loose the commissioner anyway under Nice, got all up in arms over it.

That is not an issue for Kingvictor or this 'naysayer' though, so I don't know why you brought it up.

Furious-Dave

brianthebard wrote: »

That is not an issue for Kingvictor or this 'naysayer' though, so I don't know why you brought it up.

That's good. I was just making the point because perhaps some No voters hadn't considered it.

KINGVictor

Furious-Dave wrote: »

I was just thinking there about the commissioner to the EU issue. KINGVictor, and other naysayers, are you aware that a 'No' vote is now a vote in favour of loosing our commissioner? The guarantee of keeping our commissioner is only valid if the Lisbon Treaty is passed, if it is not then we loose the commissioner under the Nice Treaty.

Anyone correct me please if I am wrong.

I think there is this general misconception that every No voter was under the spell of libertas...I listened to libertas and honestly a lot of their reasons for opposing the treaty was not my cup of tea.

As was rightly pointed out ,Commissioners are not appointed to act in the interest of their countries.Personally ,I would not care if there was only 15 or 18 commissioners if they are doing a good job,and if the Lisbon treaty allows us to keep a commissioner each...what is the assurance that the irish commissioner would act in the best interest of the country and not in the interest of his/her pocket.Most Irish commisioners are recycled politicians who get there not by virtue of Character but by appointment by the Government of the day as a reward or some form of compensation.

RandomName2

turgon wrote: »

Ok, so what do I mean by this? Basically many people aren't anti the Treaty for tangible reasons, and all the reasons they give can be easily dismissed. Despite this, they continue to be against it. Take, for instance, the Coir group, who 2 weeks ago had a poster "EU, get you hands off our unborn," despite the fact the guarantees clearly outline that competency for abortion legislation lies with the national government.

Or consider the fact the most No voters think a second referendum is undemocratic, whereas most Yes voters don't. Most No voters think the EU is centralized and anti-democratic, most Yes voters dont. Theres lots of these things. I think that their position on these issues aren't shaped by logoi, but rather by the side of the debate they lie on. So fundamentally, I believe most No voters choose their position and then found reasons to support this position. I place my former self in this group, and I am embarrassed by that.

I'd like to go into more detail about this but I have to go.

I would never have thought you voted 'no' first time round, seeing how... vehement your arguments have been. Zeal of the converted, hey?

But the same knee-jerk reaction applies to the 'yes' camps as well you know.
Vote 'yes'.
Why?
Celtic Tiger.
What?
Ireland + EU = Celtic Tiger = happy Irish citizen = good EU :)= Irish citizen owes EU :mad:. EU want Lisbon. Give EU Lisbon.

And other such cave-man speek.

KINGVictor

brianthebard wrote: »

I think that's very much open to interpretation, there is such a thing as an economic union. Besides which there's no mention of political intentions in that line that you quoted.

F-D, I'm fairly sure commissioners don't belong to member countries, and are not supposed to act in their nation's interests at the expense of others.

And to further add to that...

The association was formed to increase co-operation and forge a meaningful relationship between France and Germany ..,.two countries that were at the forefront of both world wars 1 and 2.The idea was that this relationship would stem the nationalistic tendencies throughout Europe.So the close union was more of an attempt to foster good relationships and not to turn it into a political union.

You would be aware that at the beginning ...those close union debate caused a lot of problems as Britain declined to join initially but decided to form the failed European free trade zone with sweden etc...Britain joined in 1973 with ireland and denmark..Norway was supposed to join as well but a national referendum rejected this.That is why I mentioned the Franco/German ...Anglo axis in my opening post.Even Charles de gulle was against the idea of a political union as he felt (rightly in my opinion)...there was need to preserve the national identity of each country.

The Group was made of 6 nations and it has since metamorphised into 27 ...soon to be 30 or 31.Contextually the close union arguement has no bearing...the dynamics of Europe has changed considerably...Most countries joined the EU to harness the potential economic cooperations,benefits and as a means of obtaining maximal comparative advantage...I would be surprised if countries joined so that in 50 years time Europe could have the same Anthem,currency,millitary .

Sometimes I think a lot of Eu top officials/policy makers use the Union as an experiment of their University dissertations.I may be wrong that the vast majority of Europeans prefer an economic union as opposed to a political one...but at least the decision should theirs and theirs alone and not what 6 lads decided over a bottle of whisky 60 years ago.

KINGVictor

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Ditto, it's completely emotional and can't be argued logically, at least not that I've seen.

That would be not a good enough reason to ignore it .I want to personally assure you ,I would be as realistic and objective as possible.

I support immigration but it has to be within reason and within the confines of the National Immigration laws and not be dictated by Brussels.
Scofflaw gave a flawless analysis (as always) on the EU freedom of movement which I support because it symbiotically aids economic development but my arguement is that it also contravenes national laws because it is suppposed to ostensibly override member nations' immigration laws which in my opinion is nonsensical.