Lisbon Voters Please Answer These Questions

PomBear

On a scale of 1 to 10, how much do you believe you know on the Lisbon treaty?
Will you be voting Yes or No?
What did you vote last time?
And What are your reasons for your choice in vote?

I believe I know about 7/10
I will be voting No
I voted No last time
and I am voting No because we lose sovereignty. I will vote no because it does not protect workers rights, it actually encourages the downward fall for cheap labour. Our voice in Europe will be taken from 2% of the vote to 0.8%, no thanks. I don't want EU Law to be priortised over Irish Law especially in the area of Humanities.

So what are ye're answers?

PopeBuckfastXVI

PomBear wrote: »

Our voice in Europe will be taken from 2% of the vote to 0.8%, no thanks.

QMV Double Majority voting is part of the 3/10 you don't know that much about then...

PomBear

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

QMV Double Majority voting is part of the 3/10 you don't know that much about then...

Thats why I posted this thread. With all of us trying to understand the Lisbon Treaty and both sides blatently lying and disregarding facts, our views get screwed up, we can all have mature discussion on things. So what is QMV Double Majority voting?

PopeBuckfastXVI

PomBear wrote: »

Thats why I posted this thread. With all of us trying to understand the Lisbon Treaty and both sides blatently lying and disregarding facts, our views get screwed up, we can all have mature discussion on things. So what is QMV Double Majority voting?

The 0.8% relates to the population requirement, there's also the nation requirement where we get 3.7% of that vote.

In order to pass QMV Double Majority the following must happen:
* To pass: Majority of countries (55% or 72%) representing 65% of the population or condition to block not met
* To block: At least 4 countries against the proposal or in cases where, under the Treaties, not all members participate the minimum number of members representing more than 35% of the population of the participating Member States, plus one member are against the proposal

So we have 0.8% of the population requirement and 3.7% of the number of countries requirement.

We also only need to find 3 other countries to veto any law, no matter how many for it.

Double Majority QMV absolutely protects the interests of smaller countries, that's the whole point of it.

The people claiming we only have 0.8% are purposefully distorting reality to make it sound worse than it is. Why do this? I would suggest it's because the reality isn't that bad, so they have to distort it, in order to achieve the 'no' vote they crave.

PomBear

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

The 0.8% relates to the population requirement, there's also the nation requirement where we get 3.7% of that vote.

In order to pass QMV Double Majority the following must happen:
* To pass: Majority of countries (55% or 72%) representing 65% of the population or condition to block not met
* To block: At least 4 countries against the proposal or in cases where, under the Treaties, not all members participate the minimum number of members representing more than 35% of the population of the participating Member States, plus one member are against the proposal

So we have 0.8% of the population requirement and 3.7% of the number of countries requirement.

We also only need to find 3 other countries to veto any law, no matter how many for it.

Double Majority QMV absolutely protects the interests of smaller countries, that's the whole point of it.

The people claiming we only have 0.8% are purposefully distorting reality to make it sound worse than it is. Why do this? I would suggest it's because the reality isn't that bad, so they have to distort it, in order to achieve the 'no' vote they crave.

Great post very informative and something I did not know, cheers
In my view, the 'Vote Yes' crowd have done alot to distort views also though.

FutureTaoiseach

I actually typed out a list of literally every single change to the TEU and TFEU (presently the TEC) arising from the Lisbon Treaty on the old politics.ie wiki. Unfortunately, I had failed to back up my work, so that when the site was upgraded, it was all lost. Understandibly I was not going through such an onerous process again. But I think the work, together with incessant research on my behalf into the Treaty has given me a good understanding of it. Having said that, I find myself strongly disagreeing with others as to implications of the Treaty. I would rate my understanding at around 8/10. The reason I leave out 2 is that at the end of the day, the ECJ is going to decide what Lisbon means, and they are an unknown quantity.

Like you Pombear, I will be voting no for the same reasons. I resent the pro-Lisbon bias in the media, and the BCI cynically changing the 50:50 requirement under pressure from FF. My view is that whatever the EU may have done for us, the men of 1916 and 1798 did more. They paid the ultimate price. They are also worthy of gratitude. And I also believe that in hindsight, some of the warnings of the no side were vindicated in the crisis of the 1980's. We were not a prosperous country for 20 years after membership. Yet our rulers told us this was a reason to vote yes, to get help from Brussels. Now they are at it again during a recession. I find it ironic that whether we are in good or bad times, there always seems to be an economic argument for a yes vote. It seems paradoxical.

meglome

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Like you Pombear, I will be voting no for the same reasons. I resent the pro-Lisbon bias in the media, and the BCI cynically changing the 50:50 requirement under pressure from FF. My view is that whatever the EU may have done for us, the men of 1916 and 1798 did more. They paid the ultimate price. They are also worthy of gratitude. And I also believe that in hindsight, some of the warnings of the no side were vindicated in the crisis of the 1980's. We were not a prosperous country for 20 years after membership. Yet our rulers told us this was a reason to vote yes, to get help from Brussels. Now they are at it again during a recession. I find it ironic that whether we are in good or bad times, there always seems to be an economic argument for a yes vote. It seems paradoxical.

You can be as anti-EU as you like but thankfully the majority of the people of Ireland know that the EU has done nothing but good for us. Our own government's have sometimes done things well and sometimes have done things badly but that isn't the fault of the EU.

And i'll just sit here and laugh about that insulting ****e you posted about our 1916 and 1798 leaders. As if there's some connection.

PomBear

meglome wrote: »

You can be as anti-EU as you like but thankfully the majority of the people of Ireland know that the EU has done nothing but good for us. Our own government's have sometimes done things well and sometimes have done things badly but that isn't the fault of the EU.

And i'll just sit here and laugh about that insulting ****e you posted about our 1916 and 1798 leaders. As if there's some connection.

Actually Sovereignty is a key issue in the Lisbon Treaty and the 1798 and 1916 leaders are the reason we have sovereignty and if you want to post opinions and not facts in this thread, it shows your only intentions

passive

PomBear wrote: »

Actually Sovereignty is a key issue in the Lisbon Treaty and the 1798 and 1916 leaders are the reason we have sovereignty and if you want to post opinions and not facts in this thread, it shows your only intentions

How much sovereignty did the 1798 leaders get us again?

PomBear

passive wrote: »

How much sovereignty did the 1798 leaders get us again?

How helpful is your post to people wanting to learn about the Lisbon Treaty or do you just enjoy attacking peoples posts for no apparent reason?

BlitzKrieg

passive wrote: »

How much sovereignty did the 1798 leaders get us again?

Wolfe Tone being protestant himself got it so that the protestant and catholic faiths were treated equally as possible choices of freedom of faith under the irish state before the EU came along and messed it all up...


(sarcasm rader alet!)


On topic

I am fairly comfortable with the treaty, giving myself a solid 7/10 and will be voting yes, I wouldnt go above 7 cause beyond a few articles that stick out as topic points (article 48 (TEU) being the popular one) I wouldnt be able to quote the treaty by heart without a copy near by.

And I intend to vote yes.

FutureTaoiseach

meglome wrote: »

You can be as anti-EU as you like but thankfully the majority of the people of Ireland know that the EU has done nothing but good for us. Our own government's have sometimes done things well and sometimes have done things badly but that isn't the fault of the EU.

And i'll just sit here and laugh about that insulting ****e you posted about our 1916 and 1798 leaders. As if there's some connection.

I am pro-EU and anti-Lisbon. I also don't believe an institution has a divine-right to loyalty from its citizens - especially when it tramples over their democratic-decisions in referenda. So you laugh at our heroes? Shame on you you quisling.

EU Enlargement and the single interest rate have brought disaster to this economy. And another thing: I defend my right to hold the views I hold, and make no apology to the yes side for them. In a democracy people have a right to dissent. The last thing we need in this country is some kind of new McCarthyism against no voters.

PomBear

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Wolfe Tone being protestant himself got it so that the protestant and catholic faiths were treated equally as possible choices of freedom of faith under the irish state before the EU came along and messed it all up...


(sarcasm rader alet!)


On topic

I am fairly comfortable with the treaty, giving myself a solid 7/10 and will be voting yes, I wouldnt go above 7 cause beyond a few articles that stick out as topic points (article 48 (TEU) being the popular one) I wouldnt be able to quote the treaty by heart without a copy near by.

And I intend to vote yes.

Can I ask why you're voting yes?

meglome

I'm about a 7/10 for a Yes on the treaty. It's not perfect but it is mostly an improvement and certainly there are some serious efficiency improvements which I like.

PomBear wrote: »

Actually Sovereignty is a key issue in the Lisbon Treaty and the 1798 and 1916 leaders are the reason we have sovereignty and if you want to post opinions and not facts in this thread, it shows your only intentions

Fair point see above. However I still really don't see the connection between the leaders of these rebellions and the EU. The EU agree everything with us through negotiation. Maybe you can explain?

Plotician

I've read most of it, focussed on about 50%, and have a particular interest in neutrality.

Without repeating it all again on this thread, I do believe irish neutrality is at risk, regardless of the assurances, and that was my reason for voting no the first time.

This time i will be voting no again, on the neutrality issue, and also in protest at being asked to vote again anyway. A referendum is a democratic process and i think the manoevering used to justify another referendum is ethically wrong and not in the spirit of what democracy is supposed to be.

PomBear

meglome wrote: »

I'm about a 7/10 for a Yes on the treaty. It's not perfect but it is mostly an improvement and certainly there are some serious efficiency improvements which I like.



Fair point see above. However I still really don't see the connection between the leaders of these rebellions and the EU. The EU agree everything with us through negotiation. Maybe you can explain?

Well voting Yes on the treaty will see Ireland give up some of it's sovereignty. The 1798 and 1916 leaders fought and died for this sovereignty so as you can imagine as a republican, I wouldn't like to give up any sovereignty

BlitzKrieg

A number of reasons I guess

The extension of powers to the european parliament in relation to process of EU law + an extension of influence of national parliaments (not governments, parliaments) on the EU law making process suits me as I support neither of the two major parties and these two areas tend to garner more success from independents and smaller parties (labour, socialist party both have MEPS) encoruges that the irish position within the EU isnt dictated primarily from the party in power consider that Fianna Fail get seats on THe European Council and Council of Ministers because they are in government, they are our national government and thats where they belong, but thats 2 of the 4 institutional bodies of the EU that Fianna Fail are in and the Commission candidate is nominated by the government, so chances would obviously be high that it would be 3 institutions where policy is passed through Fianna Fail hands. Any more power given to the opposition parties from Ireland on the EU level of politics is a plus in my opinion.

I like the Citizen's initiative, while most would complain it is essentially powerless because the Commission is not required to act on policy, I think it would be a great tool for awareness and that trade unions and other worker elements would benefit most from it.


Originally I was not too fussed about the change in the President of the European Council, but after Sarkozy's rather disastrous over bearing run at it, followed by a president who's government pretty much collapsed I feel the need to have that middle managment lynchpin to be consistent is much stronger.

THen there are some new elements of transperancy, the more focused enviromental position and also while there were complaints that lisbon is unreadable or purposely difficult, I have found the consolidated version while not riviting reading, very easy to navigate to confirm the EU's powers and roles on specific topics and so on.

meglome

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I am pro-EU and anti-Lisbon. I also don't believe an institution has a divine-right to loyalty from its citizens - especially when it tramples over their democratic-decisions in referenda. So you laugh at our heroes? Shame on you you quisling.

WHAT? ****ing hell. Really I had no idea my nationalism would be insulted on such a regular basis when I started in here. The EU have never trampled over a referendum, what you're saying is a complete lie. And I may be laughing at you but certainly not my heroes. How dare you drag those heroes into your little liefest.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

EU Enlargement and the single interest rate have brought disaster to this economy. And another thing: I defend my right to hold the views I hold, and make no apology to the yes side for them. In a democracy people have a right to dissent. The last thing we need in this country is some kind of new McCarthyism against no voters.

"EU Enlargement and the single interest rate have brought disaster to this economy." utter lie.
You can believe in the flat earth theory if you like, I don't care. I do care when you try to trick the Irish public with your lies.

meglome

PomBear wrote: »

Well voting Yes on the treaty will see Ireland give up some of it's sovereignty. The 1798 and 1916 leaders fought and died for this sovereignty so as you can imagine as a republican, I wouldn't like to give up any sovereignty

You see the idea that a small country, with few natural resources that needs to export most of our output can have true sovereignty is a myth to begin with. We choose to share certain things with our EU neighbours in our own best interests. The implication here seems to be something is being taken which simply isn't the case.

PomBear

meglome wrote: »

You see the idea that a small country, with few natural resources that needs to export most of our output can have true sovereignty is a myth to being with. We choose to share certain things with our EU neighbours in our own best interests. The implication here seems to be something is being taken which simply isn't the case.

Well when many people gave their lifes for us to control our small country and our few resources, its kinda hard for us to accept a treaty which we don't even support that gives away sovereignty

meglome

PomBear wrote: »

Well when many people gave their lifes for us to control our small country and our few resources, its kinda hard for us to accept a treaty which we don't even support that gives away sovereignty

But we have control or our country except where we choose to share it. It's completely our choice, no one is making us do anything. And I've yet to see anyone explain where this sharing has turned out to be a bad thing.

28% of the electorate voted No. And as I understand it 66% of them voted No because they either... didn't know what was in the treaty, things there weren't in the treaty to begin with or our commissioner, which was addressed. So a very small percentage of our electorate voted No for things that are actually to do with the Lisbon treaty. I can't see how that is particularly democratic. And let's be fair here we can vote No again if we choose and that will be that.

FutureTaoiseach

meglome wrote: »

You see the idea that a small country, with few natural resources that needs to export most of our output can have true sovereignty is a myth to begin with. We choose to share certain things with our EU neighbours in our own best interests. The implication here seems to be something is being taken which simply isn't the case.

It's not a myth in every area, for example health and education or policing. Yet Paragraph 7 of the referendum legislation allows the govt/Oireachtas to surrender our Justice vetoes (surrendering Protocol 21). I agree with you that a small country has to do some issues in the context of the EU institutions. The question then is how much. There has to be clear limits, not constantly changing them every 5 years which has been happening since 1987.

PopeBuckfastXVI

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I am pro-EU and anti-Lisbon.

You're not pro-EU, you're pro some imaginary EU, possibly pre Nice, that doesn't have any poor people in it, as evidenced by:

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

EU Enlargement ... have brought disaster to this economy.

You're anti the actual EU though...

bleg

I'll give my answer on October 2nd.

meglome

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It's not a myth in every area, for example health and education or policing. Yet Paragraph 7 of the referendum legislation allows the govt/Oireachtas to surrender our Justice vetoes (surrendering Protocol 21). I agree with you that a small country has to do some issues in the context of the EU institutions. The question then is how much. There has to be clear limits, not constantly changing them every 5 years which has been happening since 1987.

Are you afraid of change? That's what I get from this post. So far all the doom predictions we've heard at every EU treaty have not come to pass.

FunnyStuff

i

FunnyStuff

oops, mistake there. Anyway, i voted no the last time, and to be honest i didnt understand a massive amount of the treaty. But one of the things that has hardened my stance this time is being forced to vote on it again, and Sarkozy with his obnoxious comment after the first vote saying the Irish will have to vote again. That comment made me want to batter him unrecognisable.

Another little thing, i'm interested in how many people think it would be a good idea if it was brought into law that anyone eligible to vote, had to vote. Personally i think it would force people to at least try to make an informed decision, instead of just staying out of it. Anyone any opinions?

oscarBravo

FunnyStuff wrote: »

But one of the things that has hardened my stance this time is being forced to vote on it again...

You're not being forced to vote on it again. If you don't want to vote on it again, don't vote on it again.

Dinner

FunnyStuff wrote: »

Anyway, i voted no the last time, and to be honest i didnt understand a massive amount of the treaty. But one of the things that has hardened my stance this time is being forced to vote on it again, and Sarkozy with his obnoxious comment after the first vote saying the Irish will have to vote again. That comment made me want to batter him unrecognisable.

Wait... you readily admit that you didn't understand a whole lot of the treaty and your lack of knowledge contributed to your no vote. And you're complaining about having a second chance to learn about the treaty and vote again?

You'd rather your first vote in (near) ignorance stood? ****ing madness. "I might not know what I'm voting on, but dammit you should listen to me".

Worst part is the government did listen and tried to sort issues and now it's undemocratic...

It's funny that you want to commit acts of violence on Sarkozy for saying that we should vote again if the issues could be sorted but you don't seem to be nearly as angry at someone like Nigel Farage coming out with blatant lies to trick people into voting no.

FunnyStuff wrote: »

Another little thing, i'm interested in how many people think it would be a good idea if it was brought into law that anyone eligible to vote, had to vote. Personally i think it would force people to at least try to make an informed decision, instead of just staying out of it. Anyone any opinions?

I don't think it'd be a good idea. If someone doesn't want to vote but has to then they're just gonna go in and either pick at random or spoil their paper. Sort of undermines democracy. It's bad enough that some of the people who want to vote don't know what their voting on but to force people to vote is even worse.

Mario007

PomBear wrote: »

Can I ask why you're voting yes?

I'm on 7/10 on Lisbon.
I cant vote since I'm not an irish citizen though i live here eversince i was 13, thus I obviously didn't vote the last time.

I am advocating yes due to a number of reasons:
The EU Parliament gets much more power-which is really good as it is the only directly elected organization in the eu. I know Lisbon doesn't go far enough, but if EP was to be like a proper parliament then EU would have to be proper federation, so I understand why the EU has only limited role, though increased by Lisbon.
The Eurojust and Europol are really nice organizations for controlling cross-border crime. Their increased cooperation with the national police forces will help to get criminals that are hiding in other EU countries, mostly the drug dealers.
The European Council has to meet in open under Lisbon, so we get much more transparency into their dealings and we can see who wanted what.
The QMV system actually makes the EU more effective while not destroying the voting rights of the smalller countries.
The pernament EU president finally makes the EU position stronger. Right now with the rotation its almost as though we are asking one country's PM to stop ruling the country and rule EU for a while. That's the wrong approach, and can lead to something like the Czech presidency when the PM has lost a vote of confidence.
It allows the Charter of Human Rights to become legally binding and thus fills a nice hole particularly in Ireland as the Irish constitution is fairly vague with regards to the human rights in the country.

Tridion

PomBear wrote: »

On a scale of 1 to 10, how much do you believe you know on the Lisbon treaty?

10
Will be voting Yes
Voted Yes last time.

PomBear wrote: »

And What are your reasons for your choice in vote?

3 main reasons for voting yes:

1. Makes the EU more democratic
-Citizens initiative
-role for national parliaments in drafting legislation for the first time
-strengthening of the EU Parliament
-Council minutes will be public.
2. Drug-smuggling & human trafficking
- 9 out of 10 Irish gangs are active across Europe. Crime does not stop at borders and we need to be able to work together to better fight against cross-border crime
-same thing with human trafficking. More cooperation is better.
3. Environment
-Lisbon makes sustainable development & protection and improvement of the environment underlying values
-climate change is something we have to work together on.

PomBear wrote: »

and I am voting No because we lose sovereignty.

We are not losing sovereignty, we are pooling it with our neighbours in areas where we have very little influence as a small nation. In fact, within the EU, we get a bigger voice because, for example, we can work with countries that have a permanent seat in the Security Council of the UN (unlike ourselves)

PomBear wrote: »

I will vote no because it does not protect workers rights, it actually encourages the downward fall for cheap labour.

Lisbon actually strengthens workers' rights. In the Charter of Fundamental Rights, there are articles on:
-Workers' right to information and consultation within the undertaking
-Right of collective bargaining and action

I mean out of the 450 pieces of legislation in this country on workers rights, only ONE has not come out of the EU. So don't tell me the EU is not in favour of workers rights!!!

PomBear wrote: »

Our voice in Europe will be taken from 2% of the vote to 0.8%, no thanks.

This is absolutely incorrect. The Double Majority case actually gives Ireland the same size of vote as Germany, a country of 82 million people! Here, 55% of Member States will have to be on board. At the second stage, votes are weighted according to population but 65% of population of EU will have to be on board.

Let me put it to you this way. If France, Germany, Italy, UK and Spain wanted some law to go through, they would still need the support of 10 other countries. The whole point of this is to not allow larger states to bully smaller ones like Ireland. This is GOOD for us!

Plus, Ireland still retains a veto over sensitive areas.

PomBear wrote: »

I don't want EU Law to be priortised over Irish Law especially in the area of Humanities.

What do you mean by Humanities?

FunnyStuff

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're not being forced to vote on it again. If you don't want to vote on it again, don't vote on it again.

I wont even dignify that dumb comment with an answer

FunnyStuff

Dinner wrote: »

Wait... you readily admit that you didn't understand a whole lot of the treaty and your lack of knowledge contributed to your no vote. And you're complaining about having a second chance to learn about the treaty and vote again?



It's funny that you want to commit acts of violence on Sarkozy for saying that we should vote again if the issues could be sorted but you don't seem to be nearly as angry at someone like Nigel Farage coming out with blatant lies to trick people into voting no.




quote]

Are you really saying that if someone asks you to do something you are unsure of, you should just do it???? We're you born this stupid or did you get pulled to one side in class.

And Sarkozy said nothing about voting again if the issues could be sorted, he just said we'll have to vote again.

Tridion

FunnyStuff wrote: »

Are you really saying that if someone asks you to do something you are unsure of, you should just do it???? We're you born this stupid or did you get pulled to one side in class.

Are you really suggesting that if you don't understand the Treaty, you should just go and vote in ignorance, not understanding what you're voting on?

FunnyStuff wrote: »

And Sarkozy said nothing about voting again if the issues could be sorted, he just said we'll have to vote again.

What is your problem? We're not voting on Sarkozy. He is an annoying French, pompous man with a complex about his height. But we're still not voting on him.

FunnyStuff

Tridion wrote: »

What is your problem? We're not voting on Sarkozy. He is an annoying French, pompous man with a complex about his height. But we're still not voting on him.

My problem is his attitude, sticking his nose in and telling other nations what they should do. And obviously we're not voting on him, we're not voting on membership of the EU either, but judging by the posters put up by the Yes campaign, you would think that we are.

Tridion

FunnyStuff wrote: »

My problem is his attitude, sticking his nose in and telling other nations what they should do. And obviously we're not voting on him, we're not voting on membership of the EU either, but judging by the posters put up by the Yes campaign, you would think that we are.

Oh god I know. "Yes to EUrope" - I mean what does that actually mean? Platitudes, platitudes, platitudes.

But if you're looking for some good reasons to vote yes, just look at my post above. I'm personally voting yes for myself and my family and because I think it's in the best interests of Ireland.

Can I ask what way you're planning on voting?

FunnyStuff

Tridion wrote: »

Can I ask what way you're planning on voting?

Undecided.

Tridion

FunnyStuff wrote: »

Undecided.

What are your concerns or are you looking for reasons to vote yes?

Dinner

FunnyStuff wrote: »

Are you really saying that if someone asks you to do something you are unsure of, you should just do it????

No, believe it or not I'm saying either find out what you are voting on or don't bother voting! It's not a difficult concept.

FunnyStuff wrote: »

We're you born this stupid or did you get pulled to one side in class.

Nice. With well thought out reasoning like you'll be spending a lot of time around this forum without getting banned...

Mario007

Dinner wrote: »

No, believe it or not I'm saying either find out what you are voting on or don't bother voting! It's not a difficult concept.




Nice. With well thought out reasoning like you'll be spending a lot of time around this forum without getting banned...

that doesnt matter to him, cos he'll just set up another new profile. there's been a lot of newcomers here, with ten posts and a ban...

Sam Vimes

Plotician wrote: »

I've read most of it, focussed on about 50%, and have a particular interest in neutrality.

Without repeating it all again on this thread, I do believe irish neutrality is at risk, regardless of the assurances, and that was my reason for voting no the first time.

This time i will be voting no again, on the neutrality issue, and also in protest at being asked to vote again anyway. A referendum is a democratic process and i think the manoevering used to justify another referendum is ethically wrong and not in the spirit of what democracy is supposed to be.

I honestly don't mean this to be offensive so please don't take it as such but if your reasons for voting no are neutrality and being asked to vote again then you're voting on two misconceptions. The treaty does not effect our neutrality and a second referendum is not in any way undemocratic. See the 158 trillion times this has been explained for why it's not undemocratic

Sam Vimes

FunnyStuff wrote: »

oops, mistake there. Anyway, i voted no the last time, and to be honest i didnt understand a massive amount of the treaty. But one of the things that has hardened my stance this time is being forced to vote on it again

So you don't really know why you voted no the first time but you're voting no the second time because you were asked to vote again? Honestly, does that logic not seem a bit odd to you? That you didn't have any good reason to reject it last time because you didn't understand it but you object to someone asking you to reconsider?

Mrmoe

I will be voting No for a number of reasons. I will not say that I am 100% for it yet as I am still researching it. Here are some of the reasons why, in no particular order.

1. Loss of sovereignty.
2. Loss of influence.
3. The lack of a direct vote for the majority of Europeans on this issue.
4. Self amending aspect of the treaty.
5. Loss of workers rights.
6. Possibility of collapsing the current government.
7. Rerunning of the referendum in such a short space of time in addition to the contempt shown towards the No vote the last time.
8. A lack of trust in what is being offered by our current political representatives.

Sam Vimes

Mrmoe wrote: »

1. Loss of sovereignty

People say this as if QMV in some more areas is self evidently bad. Why do you object to it? Which specific areas are you concerned about moving to QMV?

Personally I think QMV is far more democratic and a better way to run the union (with notable exceptions) and I don't think Ireland's interests are so divorced to those of the rest of Europe that anything we don't want will be forced on us. Even in the areas that are currently decided by QMV unanimity is the norm

Mrmoe wrote: »

2. Loss of influence.

QMV doesn't automatically mean loss of influence. Pissing off all of our neighbours for no good reason is a sure way to lose influence though

Mrmoe wrote: »

3. The lack of a direct vote for the majority of Europeans on this issue.

None of our business. We're not being asked to vote on our approval of the ratification procedures of the other EU countries

Mrmoe wrote: »

4. Self amending aspect of the treaty.

It's not self amending. That's one of many lies that you've unfortunately been led to believe

Mrmoe wrote: »

5. Loss of workers rights.

How's that then?

Mrmoe wrote: »

6. Possibility of collapsing the current government.

So you think it's acceptable to deny 26 other countries something they want because of our internal problems with our own government?

Mrmoe wrote: »

7. Rerunning of the referendum in such a short space of time in addition to the contempt shown towards the No vote the last time.

See the 158 trillion explanations for why this is invalid

Mrmoe wrote: »

8. A lack of trust in what is being offered by our current political representatives.

If you don't trust our political representatives then get your information from one of the hundreds of other sources or better yet, read the consolidated treaty. I recommend you start here www.lisbontreaty2009.ie

Mario007

Mrmoe wrote: »

I will be voting No for a number of reasons. I will not say that I am 100% for it yet as I am still researching it. Here are some of the reasons why, in no particular order.

1. Loss of sovereignty.

could you expand on this one? because the irish constitution will stand still after Lisbon and Ireland will still be a republic in every sense of the world.

Mrmoe wrote: »

2. Loss of influence.

i'm assuming you mean the QMV. well the QMV has a double voting requirement. it does decrease ireland's influence in one of the votes to the popular 0.8%(thats population voting) but also it gives ireland an influence of 3.7%(each country has one vote). plus,as has been pointed out before, in QMV you need just 4 countries to get together to veto something.

Mrmoe wrote: »

3. The lack of a direct vote for the majority of Europeans on this issue.

you see that a problem with the eu not lisbon. if you vote no, we'll be kept under nice, which is basically the status quo today. under lisbon we don't get any new direct voting, but the EP has much more powers and so do national parliaments, so that increases direct control. also the council has to meet in the open to increase the transparency.

Mrmoe wrote: »

4. Self amending aspect of the treaty.

thats made up by the no side. every new treaty has to go through the same process of ratification as before lisbon. in fact the article regarding this in lisbon is word for word same as in nice.

Mrmoe wrote: »

5. Loss of workers rights.

dont know where you're coming from here but the charter of human rights actually increases workers rights. in fact it fills in a gap as the irish constitution is very vague with regards to protecting workers rights. with the charter we'll have workers rights set in stone.

Mrmoe wrote: »

6. Possibility of collapsing the current government.

i'm sorry to disappoint but cowen won't resign. this is a treaty where the coallition and opposition parties are on the same side. so it would mean that kenny, gilmore and gormley would have to resign too should the lisbon referendum give a no answer again. plus you should vote on the treaty not on anything else, but the treaty itself.

Mrmoe wrote: »

7. Rerunning of the referendum in such a short space of time in addition to the contempt shown towards the No vote the last time.

this has been discussed around a million times. its democratic because the constitution allows it. any law can be put forward at any time. we can have a rerun of the divorce referendum if the government so decides and then again and again. plus passing lisbon is in the government programme, and the government got its on mandate based on that programme. so basically they are trying to fulfill their promise.
also the no voters were asked to give reasons for a no answer and these issues have been addressed. i think the biggest sign of compassion from europe is that the commissioner agreement was canceled just so that irish voters would be happy.

Mrmoe wrote: »

8. A lack of trust in what is being offered by our current political representatives.

i can't help there, i'm afraid. only to repeat that you should vote on the treaty itself, not on the political representation.

hope this helps

Sam Vimes

Mario007 wrote: »

i think the biggest sign of compassion from europe is that the commissioner agreement was canceled just so that irish voters would be happy.

True. The size of the commission was being reduced for good reason. It's too big and has become inefficient. But they decided to change the decision made under Nice and defined under Lisbon to keep all the commissioners to satisfy the Irish misconception that the commissioner represents Ireland when he actually looks after the interests of the EU, just like the rest of them.

But because this change didn't require a change to the text of the treaty we have people shouting "they tuk our democracy!!!!" and generally getting pissed off about being asked to vote on a different deal to last time. The text may be the same but the outcome isn't. The only way to keep the commissioner now is to vote yes

Mrmoe

Sam Vimes wrote: »

People say this as if QMV in some more areas is self evidently bad. Why do you object to it? Which specific areas are you concerned about moving to QMV?

Personally I think QMV is far more democratic and a better way to run the union (with notable exceptions) and I don't think Ireland's interests are so divorced to those of the rest of Europe that anything we don't want will be forced on us. Even in the areas that are currently decided by QMV unanimity is the norm

QMV doesn't automatically mean loss of influence. Pissing off all of our neighbours for no good reason is a sure way to lose influence though

I believe the mere fact of the size of our vote in the QMV will make us less influential. If you were to look at it from a neutral point (with Europe being one large country for example) the QMV would be the perfect system. However, I do not want a system that is fair, I want one that provides the most influence and power for this country as possible. It is purely a selfish reason.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

None of our business. We're not being asked to vote on our approval of the ratification procedures of the other EU countries

I find this wrong as it goes against the perception of democracy that I have.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's not self amending. That's one of many lies that you've unfortunately been led to believe

I have made a mistake here, I will need to read more. I actually picked this up from a Yes voter on here, but possibly I made a mistake/misread.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

How's that then?

http://euobserver.com/18/28597

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So you think it's acceptable to deny 26 other countries something they want because of our internal problems with our own government?

Yes I do as I believe it is of greater importance to this country than the Lisbon Treaty.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

See the 158 trillion explanations for why this is invalid


If you don't trust our political representatives then get your information from one of the hundreds of other sources or better yet, read the consolidated treaty. I recommend you start here www.lisbontreaty2009.ie

I do not think it is invalid as it displays contempt. Legally it is perfectly acceptable to do it morally it is not. I already try to get my information from other sources. If I had enough time I would read the treaty, I am currently starting on it.

Daftendirekt

Mario007 wrote: »

you see that a problem with the eu not lisbon. if you vote no, we'll be kept under nice, which is basically the status quo today. under lisbon we don't get any new direct voting, but the EP has much more powers and so do national parliaments, so that increases direct control. also the council has to meet in the open to increase the transparency.

Have to comment on this: the method by which EU member states ratify treaties is a matter for the member states alone, and the EU has no power to intervene. And nor should it.

K-9

Mrmoe wrote: »

I believe the mere fact of the size of our vote in the QMV will make us less influential. If you were to look at it from a neutral point (with Europe being one large country for example) the QMV would be the perfect system. However, I do not want a system that is fair, I want one that provides the most influence and power for this country as possible. It is purely a selfish reason.

Fair enough. The best system then would be to have no QMV, or better still, stay out of the EU.

We alrady have QMV. Any examples of where it went against us or is this a principle that has to upheld, no matter what?

meglome

Mrmoe wrote: »

I find this wrong as it goes against the perception of democracy that I have.

How do you think it's democratic for us to decide on what the rest of Europe should do?

Mrmoe wrote: »

...I actually picked this up from a Yes voter on here, but possibly I made a mistake/misread.

You see this comment makes me wonder about your motives. I've been reading stuff in here for weeks and I've never seen any Yes voters mistake that, it's one of the biggest lies from the No campaign.

3greenrizla's

I voted No last time, when I considered myself fairly knowledgeable about the treaty, I have forgotten most of what I read so am coming back for a fresh look at the issue.

But last time....
I was not happy with loosing a commissioner (sorted now, or so were told),
I was fearful about loosing our voting % (thanks for the good explanation about double majority earlier in the thread), and I was fearful about us loosing our sovereignty (still there)

but most of all I voted no because of the politicians who were telling me "You MUST vote yes, trust me on it, I'm not going to explain the reason why you should vote yes, but if you don't the rest of Europe will shun us forever & we need to know our place...... Nevermind the fact that this is a repackaged EU constitution that has been rejected by the French & the Danes, a lot of people got paid a lot of money and put in a lot of time into this treaty, so it has to go through with us or without us, oh & no one thought of a plan b"

Someone has a link in their sig that suggests 92% of economists think Lisbon is a good idea, yeah, economists, there a great trustworthy bunch along with the politicians, I wonder what the builders think?

and this time, it's even worse, I feel like they are coming out and saying "we told you once, now get it right this time"

I seen a (yes)poster today that read something like "A strong Irish voice is vital in Europe" & thought what is our Veto worth if Europe "shun" us when we say NO & would we not have a very loud voice in Europe if we say NO again?

I then seen a (no) poster that suggested 80% of European citizins were against the treaty, which made me think of the Danes and the French again, and sneaky, obnoxious politicians.

I am just an average voter, with enough interest in politics to read threads like this and look for information at the minute I feel "bullied" and I dont like it, I don't like the "Vote yes OR ELSE"...... or else what?