Top Reasons to Vote NO to Lisbon Treaty

onq

Its probably time to generate some meaningful discussion on Irish Boards about the Lisbon Treaty V.2/
The Constitution of Europe V.3/
Screw the Electorate Again/
Banker's Heaven V.0

We'll start with an oldie but a goodie, and follow up with more current utterances. The loss of a Commissioner and the inscrutable text have been addressed in the eyes of some by the recent assurances and the consolidated texts of the Lisbon Treaty and the Amended and Renamed Treaty of Rome and the Maastricht Treaty.

Everything else, including the provenance of the document, its DNA if you will, appears to be unchanged, and the sentiment across Europe remains the same, if a little cowed by the current FUD merchants. Embracing Lisbon won't automatically revive the World Economy.

On the contrary, the limited globalisation afforded by the single European Market that now includes former Eastern Bloc Countries is going to beggar the rest of us and void the effects of hard won pay agreements per the Laval Decision.

Anyway, let's start with this:

From http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87518

==========================================

Top Reasons to Vote NO to Lisbon Treaty

national | eu | opinion/analysis Tuesday May 13, 2008 12:33 by Howard Holby
- summary and details

In agreement with and/or in addition to the reasons listed by the other NO to Lisbon Treaty campaigns, this article provides a list of the top reasons why a NO vote to the Lisbon Treaty is the reasonable decision.

Everyone - any individual or organisation - is encouraged to forward this document to other individuals, campaigns and organisations, distribute, publish in whole or parts of the article, adapted or unchanged, with or without reference to or acknowledgment of its source.

Summary

The Lisbon Treaty:

1. is an incomprehensible constitution, therefore by most voters it can only be signed in blind faith
(note: most of the advocates of the treaty admit that they have NOT read the text.)
2. as a constitution entails the loss of national sovereignty
3. is a constitution designed to cheat us and avoid referendums
4. is implemented via a profoundly undemocratic process
5. is a profoundly undemocratic constitution laying down the foundation of an undemocratic federal state, with the unelected Commission on the top of the decision-making hierarchy
6. for smaller EU countries like Ireland, means a radical loss of the voters' influence on the nationally elected EU-bodies
7. means the loss of permanent representation in the Commission
8. has an alternative: the EUDemocrats.

Details

1. Incomprehensible text
The Lisbon Treaty is an incomprehensible, unreadable and too complex constitution to read within a reasonable time frame. The fundamental constitutional provisions of the Lisbon Treaty are hidden in scattered fragments of complex, renumbered, incomprehensible amendments. It is against basic common sense and against the sense of responsibility to sign any treaty or contract without fully knowing its contents and understanding its consequences. This is especially true in the case of making a decision regarding a new constitution, which will ultimately determine our and our children’s future, with implications affecting all the relevant aspects of our life.
(Note: most of the advocates of the treaty admit that they have NOT read the text.)

2. Loss of national sovereignty
Since the Lisbon Treaty is a constitution that lays down the foundation of a new federal state of the European Union, ratifying the treaty implies the loss of national sovereignty of each EU-state, in legal, political and economical terms. Most of the main negative consequences, such as the tax harmonisation, will be secondary consequences following from the loss of national sovereignty.

3. A constitution to cheat us
The text of the Lisbon Treaty is the same as that of the former EU Constitution, under different name and with different presentation. Since the EU Constitution was meant to establish a new federal state, the Lisbon Treaty serves the very same purpose in a disguised form, thus depriving the nation states of their sovereignty. The European Commission and the national governments of the EU countries deny the loss of national sovereignty in order to avoid putting this Treaty on referendums. By the act of misleading and making the voters unknowingly give up their national sovereignty, the political class of Europe forcefully imposes new citizens’ rights and obligations onto nearly 500 million citizens and deprive the voters of Europe of their current voting competencies by a grand-scale deceit.

4. The undemocratic process of Lisbon
Propaganda of distorted facts and deceit are by definition methods of undemocratic forces rather than of democracies.

“Dictatorship is one of the two chief forms of government in use today. Modern dictators usually use force or fraud to gain power and then keep it through intimidation, terror, suppression of civil liberties, and control of the mass media.” (Encyclopædia Britannica)

The implementation of the Lisbon Treaty by means of deceit is the end of the nation states of Europe, end of political freedom and the end of democracy in Europe.
Because the Lisbon Treaty is a constitution the referendum on this treaty in all of the EU-states would be the absolute requirement of the democratic foundation of a new federal state. A new constitution is the fundamental set of laws defining the rights and obligations of the citizens and defining the type of the system (democratic or other) they will be governed by; therefore the citizens’ direct approval of the new system would be the a priori requirement to satisfy the principles of democracy in the process of constitutionalisation. However, in the case of Lisbon Treaty, the citizens of 26 EU countries out of 27 countries are not granted the democratic constitutional right for general elections to express their decision on the new federal constitution.
Rather than following the democratic process of constitutionalisation, the leaders of Europe have utterly contradicted the voters’ voice expressed via the former French and Dutch referendums. With the European Parliament having ratified the Lisbon Treaty long before the results of the Irish referendum on the Treaty, the EU has revealed its utter disrespect for the voice of the Irish voters as well.
It is a contradiction in terms to guarantee a region of democracy, security and rule of law, and to establish a new political system in the respective region by the very act of abolishing the voters’ ultimate right to have a say on the system to be implemented. While the EU and the national political class resort to totalitarian means to pursue their ambitions, they use derogatory labels like “nationalism”, “xenophobia”, and the false application of the terms “terrorism” and “racism”, etc. to suppress the voices of democracy, and to neutralise the European voters’ rightful and lawful self-defence against the undemocratic process of Lisbon.

5. Undemocratic constitution – wide gap between promises and realisation
The Lisbon Treaty itself and its supporters claim that the treaty's provisions will actually implement a democratic system, and the treaty will even “improve democracy”. However, based on the very text of the Lisbon Treaty, the exact opposite is true. So far only the “NO to Lisbon” groups could substantiate their claims by the actual text and by an objective analysis of the implications of the Treaty. As opposed to the statements of the advocates of Lisbon Treaty, this treaty is a profoundly undemocratic constitution designing a profoundly undemocratic political system, in which the essential legislative powers of the national parliaments are transferred to a distant, unaccountable and unelected group of bureaucrats, the European Commission. The Lisbon Treaty is a constitution with provisions protecting the new federal state against its citizens, rather than protecting the citizens against the abuse of powers by the state. The system the treaty designs is without effective checks and balances of powers, which would be required as per the principles of democracy.

6. Radical loss of actual influence of the voters on the political decisions
For all EU-countries, but especially for the smaller countries like Ireland, the loss of national sovereignty under Lisbon implies a further loss of democratic influence on the political decisions. As of today the voters of each EU-country delegate ALL of their representatives by general elections into their national parliament. The electorate is represented with 100% coverage of the decisions made by their respective national parliament. However, under the Lisbon Treaty the voters of each EU-country can delegate by general election only a fragmental representation into the European Parliament and the Council, the members of which will however exercise powers over ALL citizens of Europe. This fragment equals the percentage determined by the country size divided by the entire size of the EU. In the case of Ireland, this percentage will be 12/751 =1.6%. The Irish voters’ ability to influence the overall decisions made by their political lead will therefore be reduced from 100% to 1.6%.

7. Loss of permanent representation in the Commission
After 2014 the EU-states lose their right to a permanent Commissioner. In any 5 year term only two-third of the EU-countries will be represented in the Commission, in the ultimate decision-making body, which will shape the all-time strategies and the very direction of the EU. Because smaller countries like Ireland will not have significant say via other EU-institutions either, for Ireland the loss of permanent commissioner entails the absolute lack of influence on the decisions of the EU.

8. Voting NO to Lisbon Treaty does not mean rejecting alliance among the countries of Europe; it means a demand for restoring the voters’ rights and other guiding principles of democracy, rule of law and constitutionalism in Europe. It means asking for an accountable political lead, and for a transparent and truly democratic system established on a genuine debate and factual agreement between the leaders and voters of Europe. The optimal alternative of the Lisbon Treaty is to retain the sovereignty of the nation states and to design a truly democratic European system in which a strong yet free alliance among the countries of Europe is developed under the constitutional control of the voters over their own national governments and over the decisions of the EU. (See the EUDemocrats' website under the References.)

Main references

"Time for full facts on Lisbon Treaty"
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/time-for-full....html

"Voting No for a reason: Lisbon Treaty OR a Europe of democracy"
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87345

The research articles and references at:
"The Lisbon Treaty Blog: Facts about the Lisbon Treaty - what political science tells us"
"Summary of the Lisbon Treaty Research"
http://howardh.wordpress.com/category/lisbon-treaty-res...arch/

"Lisbon Treaty Irish Referendum Blog - National Platform"
http://nationalplatform.wordpress.com/

EUDemocrats - the alternative of the current EU-leadership
http://www.eudemocrats.org/

Related link: Related Link: http://howardh.wordpress.com/

Lemming

Indymedia. Opinion. Wordpress blog.

Ok, this argument is over already with liberal amount of fail on your part ong. Try using a reputable source for your citations ... might lend you more crediblity. Just a suggestion of course ...

Riskymove

onq wrote: »

Its probably time to generate some meaningful discussion on Irish Boards about the Lisbon Treaty V.2/

where have you been?


and can we have the title changed to Top "Real" reasons to vote No

ei.sdraob

goes and gets the popcorn ready :pac:

PopeBuckfastXVI

onq wrote: »

Its probably time to generate some meaningful discussion on Irish Boards about the Lisbon Treaty V.2/
The Constitution of Europe V.3/
Screw the Electorate Again/
Banker's Heaven V.0

Oops... fell at the first fence...

Hitman Actual

What sort of BS is this? You've just copied an Indymedia article, dated 13th May 2008 no less, and pasted it in here word for word. You haven't even copped on to the discrepancy in the Commissioner argument. As Lemming alludes to, "Epic Fail" on your part.

As for the main points in the article, they have been debunked and ridiculed on here so many times that it's not funny anymore.

Dinner

That Commissioner argument has to be my favourite one used by some members of the no camp. Even the European Commissioner wiki page has the oath that they all have to take so even the most basic of research will debunk that.

As for the rest of the article, I love how it turns into an EUDemocrats ad in point 8.

Scofflaw

Ah, another variation on "the EU is wrong because it impinges on the sacred and indivisible nature of national sovereignty". Splendid.

"I believe in the nation-state almighty, inheritor of heaven and earth.
It was conceived by the power of the Treaty of Westphalia and born of War.
It suffered in the world wars, was crucified, died, and was buried under the EU.
It descended into the hell of pooled sovereignty. In the third decade it rose again.
It ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Founding Fathers.
It is the only acceptable form of organisation for the living and the dead.
I believe in Holy Sovereignty,
the holy Nation-State, the communion of those with similar ethnic origins,
the unforgiveness of federalism and supra-nationalism,
the expulsion of the foreign body,
and the national identity everlasting and immutable."

wearily,
Scofflaw

K-9

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055616894

thebman

If its incomprehensible, how did you manage to work out the other points

turgon

onq wrote: »

1. is an incomprehensible constitution, therefore by most voters it can only be signed in blind faith

Unfortunately they cant write international treaties in the kind of language one writes childrens book. It is not in "blind" faith, anyone can read the far easier to understand White Paper or other documents to see whats changing.

onq wrote: »

(note: most of the advocates of the treaty admit that they have NOT read the text.)

A classic No side tactic appears to be that if you cant attack the Treaty, attack the Treaties supporters.

onq wrote: »

2. as a constitution entails the loss of national sovereignty

Indeed. However the sub argument you give is completely fallacious - there is no federal Europe (despite how much No siders really do want one) and there is no direct tax harmonization.

onq wrote: »

3. is a constitution designed to cheat us and avoid referendums

What you've done here is completely contradicted yourself. In number 2 you don't want a federal Europe as you believe in national sovereignty. Yet in number 3 you do want a federal Europe and you want less national sovereignty so that you can forcibly dictate how individual nations ratify their treaties.

In either case, voting No will not change this situation.

onq wrote: »

4. is implemented via a profoundly undemocratic process

As above, no 3. Also, your failure to understand the key differences between the Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty isn't doing you any favors.

In either case, this isnt really a number 4, its more like 3(b). So now you have seven reasons to vote No.

onq wrote: »

5. is a profoundly undemocratic constitution laying down the foundation of an undemocratic federal state, with the unelected Commission on the top of the decision-making hierarchy

Number 5 is an out and out lie for two reasons:

1. Lisbon gives more power to the democratically elected accountable European Parliament.
2. Lisbon gives national parliaments a bigger say in EU legislation, by giving more time etc

Whatever about saying the EU is undemocratic (which can be argued), saying Lisbon is so is completely wrong.

onq wrote: »

6. for smaller EU countries like Ireland, means a radical loss of the voters' influence on the nationally elected EU-bodies

Firstly, this has nothing - I repeat NOTHING - to do with Lisbon. So now we are down to 6 reasons.

Secondly, you again contradict yourself. One of the apparent hall marks of democracy is that everyone is equal, so this should be a reason for you to vote Yes.

onq wrote: »

7. means the loss of permanent representation in the Commission

Not true, as of Lisbon 2. So thats five reasons now.

onq wrote: »

8. has an alternative: the EUDemocrats.

Thats not actually a reason for voting No, thats simply saying that voting Yes is not as bad as some would make out. So thats four reasons in total.


So to summarize, onq gave us eight "reasons" to vote No, a full half (4,6,7,8) of which were not reasons at all or simply rephrasing of other reasons, one reason that is ridiculous and that cant be bridged (1), one reason that voting No will not rectify (3), one out and out lie (5) and one - ONE - reason that is partly true (2).

onq

Hitman Actual wrote: »

What sort of BS is this? You've just copied an Indymedia article, dated 13th May 2008 no less, and pasted it in here word for word. You haven't even copped on to the discrepancy in the Commissioner argument. As Lemming alludes to, "Epic Fail" on your part.

As for the main points in the article, they have been debunked and ridiculed on here so many times that it's not funny anymore.

Aaaah.

Nohting quite like the sound of gas escaping in the rush to judgement.

Ye all must have missed this in the PREAMBLE I wrote.

As in Pre the Amble - like, in the First Few Lines!!!11!

The loss of a Commissioner and the inscrutable text have been addressed in the eyes of some by the recent assurances and the consolidated texts of the Lisbon Treaty and the Amended and Renamed Treaty of Rome and the Maastricht Treaty.

Hang yer heads in Shame.



ONQ

ixtlan

onq wrote: »

6. Radical loss of actual influence of the voters on the political decisions
For all EU-countries, but especially for the smaller countries like Ireland, the loss of national sovereignty under Lisbon implies a further loss of democratic influence on the political decisions. As of today the voters of each EU-country delegate ALL of their representatives by general elections into their national parliament. The electorate is represented with 100% coverage of the decisions made by their respective national parliament. However, under the Lisbon Treaty the voters of each EU-country can delegate by general election only a fragmental representation into the European Parliament and the Council, the members of which will however exercise powers over ALL citizens of Europe. This fragment equals the percentage determined by the country size divided by the entire size of the EU. In the case of Ireland, this percentage will be 12/751 =1.6%. The Irish voters’ ability to influence the overall decisions made by their political lead will therefore be reduced from 100% to 1.6%.

Thanks Turgon for the point by point response. Just to dissect this a little more.

This article is... I pause seeking a better word than gibberish. If we had never been a member of the EU and were seeking entry through Lisbon then some of point 6 might have some limited and distorted merit. Since we have been members since 1973 and have gradually since then pooled limited sovereigny with the other EU states it's like being in a timewarp!

"As of today the voters of each EU-country delegate ALL of their representatives by general elections into their national parliament." Eh?! I didn't realise that Lisbon was creating the EU parliament. I must have been imagining all those past MEP elections!s Sorry for the sarcasm. This is just not true. We have been electing representatives into the EU parliament for decades.

How can anyhow claim that under Nice, the current EU rules, Irish voters ability to influence decisions by political leaders is 100%? What does that mean? We share influence with the other states. They have influence over us, and we have influence over them. Some people don't like that, but to suggest that Lisbon is a radical departure from Nice is rather crazy.

To condense the influence of an Irish voter down to the representation in the EU parliament is highly misleading. Why not simply take the equal voting weight we have with the UK and Germany via the number of states criteria in QMV decisions. That is also misleading, but no more so.

The reality is that being part of the EU gives us more influence that we would otherwise have. 100% influence is not much use when it's an issue like gas supplies from Russia, where a few million customers on the edge of Europe doesn't really make much difference to them. Better to have a few percent influence and be part of a few hundred million customers?

Ix

onq

Hitman Actual wrote: »

What sort of BS is this? You've just copied an Indymedia article, dated 13th May 2008 no less, and pasted it in here word for word. You haven't even copped on to the discrepancy in the Commissioner argument. As Lemming alludes to, "Epic Fail" on your part.

<snip right-winger pablum>.

I have indeed copied an indymedia article.

I gave the URL from which I copied it.

I even stated as follows; -

"We'll start with an oldie but a goodie, and follow up with more current utterances."

So pleasant to see you can sort of read.

I say "sort of" because in your rush to put me down with this comment

"You haven't even copped on to the discrepancy in the Commissioner argument."

you appear to have missed this comment, which followed my above comment; -

"The loss of a Commissioner and the inscrutable text have been addressed in the eyes of some by the recent assurances and the consolidated texts of the Lisbon Treaty and the Amended and Renamed Treaty of Rome and the Maastricht Treaty."

Now where would that have been hiding ehhhhh?

Surely not right in the first few lines?

At the top of the post?

Why yes, its true!

*mheheheh*

HAND

HTH

ONQ

ixtlan

onq wrote: »

Aaaah.

Nohting quite like the sound of gas escaping in the rush to judgement.

Ye all must have missed this in the PREAMBLE I wrote.

As in Pre the Amble - like, in the First Few Lines!!!11!

The loss of a Commissioner and the inscrutable text have been addressed in the eyes of some by the recent assurances and the consolidated texts of the Lisbon Treaty and the Amended and Renamed Treaty of Rome and the Maastricht Treaty.

Hang yer heads in Shame.



ONQ

To be fair you commented on the commissioner changes. On the consolidated texts, they were widely available for anyone who looked before Lisbon1, so it's misleading of you to suggest this is new.

And to be fair to the other posters, their annoyance stems from you cutting and pasting a long ancient article whose points have already been addressed in many other threads. Please put a bit more effort into the debate. Go through your "points" from that article and give your own opinion on them. Don't just regurgitate someone else's view.

Ix.

BlitzKrieg

On the contrary, the limited globalisation afforded by the single European Market that now includes former Eastern Bloc Countries is going to beggar the rest of us and void the effects of hard won pay agreements per the Laval Decision.

Ahh the laval decision.

The result of which was the Directive of services which actually resulted in...

Oh let me just take it from the horses mouth, From one of our own elected meps:

With regard to the services directive, the Socialist Group suceeded in removing the most controversial and problematic features of the draft Services Directive put forward in 2004, with the result that the completely revised text was described by the European Trade Union Confederation as a 'success story for the European trade union movement'. The Socialist Group supported the final text but remain vigilent as to how it is being enacted into national law by Member States' governments.

There is no direct link between the Services Directive and Lisbon Treaty, despite what opponents of the Treaty are now claiming. In fact some of those who are now making these claims voted in the European Parliament for full implementation of the final text!

What Lisbon does do is to give national parliaments like the Oireachtas a much greater role prior to the adoption of EU legislation at European level so that there should be a much deeper debate at national level on any controversial proposals in the future, provided the Oireactas avails of the opportunities presented by the new treaty if it is passed.

Furthermore, the Lavel ruling and a number of other such rulings have to do with weaknesses in the existing 1996 Posting of Workers directive, which now has to be revised. Those who are making these claims ignore the fact that the ETUC sees the Lisbon Treaty as very much part of the solution to the problems raised by some recent ECJ rulings, with the binding Charter of Fundamental Rights, the restated values and objectives, the binding social clause, and the provison enabling the EU to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights

So not only does it have nothing to do with lisbon (and like many other complaints about the EU has already been addressed) but Lisbon can actually be a possible failsafe against further such issues.

turgon

onq wrote: »

"The loss of a Commissioner and the inscrutable text have been addressed in the eyes of some by the recent assurances and the consolidated texts of the Lisbon Treaty and the Amended and Renamed Treaty of Rome and the Maastricht Treaty.

Why only "some"?

Hitman Actual

onq wrote: »

I have indeed copied an indymedia article.

I gave the URL from which I copied it.

I even stated as follows; -

"We'll start with an oldie but a goodie, and follow up with more current utterances."

So pleasant to see you can sort of read.

I say "sort of" because in your rush to put me down with this comment

"You haven't even copped on to the discrepancy in the Commissioner argument."

you appear to have missed this comment, which followed my above comment; -

"The loss of a Commissioner and the inscrutable text have been addressed in the eyes of some by the recent assurances and the consolidated texts of the Lisbon Treaty and the Amended and Renamed Treaty of Rome and the Maastricht Treaty."

Now where would that have been hiding ehhhhh?

Surely not right in the first few lines?

At the top of the post?

Why yes, its true!

*mheheheh*

HAND

HTH

ONQ

Is that one issue that was missed the only thing you can respond to in all the replies?

Edit: Oh wait, you replied to it twice. Brilliant.

bibbly

What happened to all the Libertas style arguments against the Lisbon treaty, claiming it will lead to abortion, neutrality, changes to our corporation tax, conscription, etc..

Is it possible that people realise that the lisbon treaty has nothing to do with any of these issues,,

You have simply rehashed the same point over and over again,, claiming that it is undemocratic, but if you actually look at the text you can see that the European parliament will in effect become more democratic.

So just relax, stop looking for things that are not there, I want to help Ireland get back on its feet by going back to the centre of Europe so I am voting yes.. To what is a boring, legal jargon, no big deal and will have no significant change on our lives..

The majority of Irish people think Europe is a good thing so let’s keep it that way.

The question should really come down to, do you think Ireland is better off part of Europe contributing in a meaningful way, or do you think it would be better for the country if we stood back and let everyone else move forward together.

There are 3 choices,

Vote Yes
Vote No
Don’t Vote at all

Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Ahh the laval decision.

The result of which was the Directive of services which actually resulted in...

Oh let me just take it from the horses mouth, From one of our own elected meps:

So not only does it have nothing to do with lisbon (and like many other complaints about the EU has already been addressed) but Lisbon can actually be a possible failsafe against further such issues.

Here's the relevant response from ETUC itself:

The European Parliament and the Council, together with European trade unions succeeded in eliminating a redefinition of the Posting of Workers, from a minimum (floor of rights) to a maximum (ceiling of rights) Directive, through the initial Bolkestein proposal. The Posting of Workers Directive was adopted by the European legislator with a broad consensus in the understanding that it would be a minimum directive. In the same way the Lisbon Treaty will have a binding Charter of Fundamental Rights – the main reason for ETUC to support this Treaty.
...
The ETUC calls on the European authorities to recognise that these cases are not solely about the models in Sweden and Denmark but have European wide implications. We call for early action to reassure unions that fundamental rights are not diminished by the free movement provisions of Europe. Already some are linking ratification of the EU Reform Treaty to correcting these cases. The ETUC supports the EU Reform Treaty, and that’s why urgent action is necessary. Because it would be naïve of the European and national authorities to conclude that these cases will not be increasingly in the minds of workers and trade unions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thebman

So far the only people I've met who are thinking of voting no are doing so because they think one country, one vote and all this representative population stuff is for a more US like country with states and that they think that is the way the EU is heading.

PopeBuckfastXVI

thebman wrote: »

So far the only people I've met who are thinking of voting no are doing so because they think one country, one vote and all this representative population stuff is for a more US like country with states and that they think that is the way the EU is heading.

Hmm, it sounds like they either don't know how the EU works, or they don't know how the US works.

ButcherBoiz

What is a democracy? Some people feel that when we vote we only have a choice between parties that are very similar, and even if a new party comes to power, they have to contend with international factors essentially beyond their control/reach, and smaller countries end up conforming to a larger consensus.
It is not enough for Irish politicians to say the Lisbon Treaty is good for Joe Bloggs. Or the French President.

Notice that when the date for a new referendum was announced, the UN General Secretary turned up in Dublin (co-incidence?):

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/un-secretary-general-begins-twoday-trip-to-dublin-1809124.html

Again, can we allow such influential international figures to have such an input? If someone could find the footage of RTE interviewing the UN General Secretary... I recall that he said if would be good for Ireland to vote yes and to enter into the next phase of the Union voluntarily, as a nation --or words along those lines. I thought the impression he gave was a little bizarre.

In any event, we voted on this already. If last year's vote is thrown out, what would stop us throwing out this years vote?

ei.sdraob

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

What is a democracy? Some people feel that when we vote we only have a choice between parties that are very similar, and even if a new party comes to power, they have to contend with international factors essentially beyond their control/reach, and smaller countries end up conforming to a larger consensus.
It is not enough for Irish politicians to say the Lisbon Treaty is good for Joe Bloggs. Or the French President.

Notice that when the date for a new referendum was announced, the UN General Secretary turned up in Dublin (co-incidence?):

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/un-secretary-general-begins-twoday-trip-to-dublin-1809124.html

Again, can we allow such influential international figures to have such an input? If someone could find the footage of RTE interviewing the UN General Secretary... I recall that he said if would be good for Ireland to vote yes and to enter into the next phase of the Union voluntarily, as a nation --or words along those lines. I thought the impression he gave was a little bizarre.

In any event, we voted on this already. If last year's vote is thrown out, what would stop us throwing out this years vote?

how do you feel about the European Parliament being granted a larger say in the running of the EU if Lisbon is passed?

the MEPs are after all directly elected by the people of all the states

would it not be undemocratic by your reasoning to deny the people democratic representation and more transparency / less bureaucracy?

eagerly awaiting an answer

ixtlan

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

What is a democracy? Some people feel that when we vote we only have a choice between parties that are very similar,

You are correct, but the reason that all the main parties are similar is that the centre is where the public want them to be. If it wasn't people could vote for Sinn Fein and Libertas (now gone). So while people complain that all politicans are "the same", that's the way the public votes.

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

and even if a new party comes to power, they have to contend with international factors essentially beyond their control/reach, and smaller countries end up conforming to a larger consensus.

Also correct, which is why being a central part of the EU is critical for Ireland. Outside the EU those international issues are still there, and we would have no say at all. For example gas supplies from Russia.

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

It is not enough for Irish politicians to say the Lisbon Treaty is good for Joe Bloggs. Or the French President.

It's not enough just to say it, but there is a lot of information available on why it is good for us. Anyone... French/German etc can offer an opinion. It's up to you to inform yourself.

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

Notice that when the date for a new referendum was announced, the UN General Secretary turned up in Dublin (co-incidence?):

Actually yes, it was a co-incidence. Or at least he didn't arrange his visit for that day. I guess the government might have chosen that day for that reason but I really don't think so. Even if they did so what?!

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

Again, can we allow such influential international figures to have such an input? If someone could find the footage of RTE interviewing the UN General Secretary... I recall that he said if would be good for Ireland to vote yes and to enter into the next phase of the Union voluntarily, as a nation --or words along those lines. I thought the impression he gave was a little bizarre.

Actually my recollection was that he was asked if voting yes to the treaty conflicted in any way with our membership of the UN and obligations under that. He responded that no it was perfectly fine for us to agree to Lisbon if we wished. I do not recall him saying that it would be good for us to vote yes, and I would expect he would be far too good of a diplomat to say anything like that. He was asked how it related to the UN, and since everyone (yes and no groups) appear to support the UN I see no problem with getting his opinion on that connection.

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

In any event, we voted on this already. If last year's vote is thrown out, what would stop us throwing out this years vote?

This point keeps coming up. It is legal to ask the people again whether the answer is still no, or might have changed to yes. There have been clarifications added to the treaty which respond to issues that many no voters had. To answer the question of will there be another vote after a yes, there will be at the next treaty, just as we are voting on Lisbon after we voted yes to Nice.

Ix.

thebman

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Hmm, it sounds like they either don't know how the EU works, or they don't know how the US works.

Its not just one person that has said that.

A guy in work and a friend from college so I think it is probably quite widespread among no voters. Either that or I just happen to know a few people that think that