Why are YOU voting no ?

Lazyfox · 09-06-2008 03:32PM

Remember the Dutch wine case where we should have been able to get wine beer and cigs from anywhere in the EU.

The case was all but won

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/11/sovereignty-up-in-smoke.html

but at the last minute the 3 EU judge panel overturned the preliminary ruling a highly unusual event as they normally rubber stamp the judgement.

Who were the judges do you ask

Allan Rosas, President of the Chamber,( Finnish )
Anthony E Borg Barthet, U.O.M., LL.D. (Malta)
Aindrias Ó Caoimh (Irish)

Draw your own conclusions about their independence

TheBigLebowski · 09-06-2008 03:33PM

sink wrote: »

Just as an experiment why don't you build your own car and see if the tax office will let you not pay VRT.:rolleyes:

Yeah because the Irish government didn't know that there were no car manufacturers in Ireland when they invented VRT :rolleyes:

molloyjh · 09-06-2008 03:35PM

democrates wrote: »

Has Bush (now ~25% approval rating) a mandate to attack Iran?

Technically yes, the people elected him, but you see the weakness inherent in representative democracy. The solution is more direct citizen involvement.

If we vote No on Thursday it does not guarantee the reform which I think is necessary, true, but it does prevent the plan to cement citizen exclusion for the next one, two or three decades during which Brian Cowan predicts the new rules will apply, and keeps the possibility of the right kind of reform alive.

We're told there's no plan B. Lisbon is plan B after the constitution, the sky did not fall on the French and Dutch who rejected that. "The EU will continue to operate under existing rules" is what happens after a No, not the end of civilisation as we know it.

To answer your question on Bush, no he doesn't. Any action like that would need to be passed by Congress and there is little chance of that happening. The reason for this is that they know that the people will not accept it and so your point in many ways is null and void in that regard. The fact is that representative democracy would work in that case.

I take your point though, however the impacts of Lisbon are minimal to us individually. As has been said before elsewhere the likes of budgets etc are far more important to us that Lisbon will ever be so where do you start and stop with the citizen involvement? It gets very messy if we open that can of worms and I really don't feel we should.

There may well be another attempt to repackage it, but what would they change if they do. Many in Europe (and many independant pundits also) believe that we're not going to get much more out of it. Its fairly good to us as it is. So what can be done to get a Yes? And how will we ever find out if so many people are basing their decision on a lack of knowledge, misconceptions or myths?

sink · 09-06-2008 03:37PM

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

Yeah because the Irish government didn't know that there were no car manufacturers in Ireland when they invented VRT :rolleyes:

Regardless of whether they knew it or not it is not illegal under EU law because it is not an import duty. If the EU was to rule against the law it would have to take into account the Netherlands which does produce it's own sports cars and applies the same 45% tax to them, so how could the EU rule that it was an illegal import tariff? Unless it applies double standards, one rule for car producing countries another rule for countries who don't? Just think of how that would go down.

TheBigLebowski · 09-06-2008 03:40PM

sink wrote: »

Regardless of whether they knew it or not it is not illegal under EU law because it is not an import duty. If the EU was to rule against the law it would have to take into account the Netherlands which does produce it's own sports cars and applies the same 45% tax to them, so how could the EU rule that it was an illegal import tariff?

Are you really that naive to believe that VRT was not a direct replacement for import duty on cars and ,as such, is not effectively the same thing?

democrates · 09-06-2008 03:40PM

sink wrote: »

I think it shows the weaknesses in directly electing leaders of the executive government. In a parliamentary democracy the leader of the country needs to maintain the backing of the majority of MP's to remain in power. There is no way Blair or Brown would be able to get involved in another war with out a backbench revolt followed by a snap election. It is one of the reasons I would never support a directly elected president of Europe.

That's it, an individual with too much untrammeled power is far too risky. When ordinary decent Americans elect a president, it is on the understanding that Congress, the Senate and the constitution provide checks on the presidents power, just as proposed EU positions have checks and balances.

However, bring on a crisis, and hasty changes may occur. Right now in America citizens can be illegally wiretapped, taken off the streets, habeus corpus is suspended, torture is approved, the Geneva convention ignored, private military contractors held above the law. 1984.

The real kicker, because we've all written Bush off as a nut, is that with all this and more going on, the democrat dominated congress refuse to impeach. It seems to me that the interests of the body politic takes higher priority over what's best for citizens, so I keep coming back to the solution of citizen involvement.

molloyjh · 09-06-2008 03:43PM

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

Are you really that naive to believe that VRT was not a direct replacement for import duty on cars and ,as such, is not effectively the same thing?

It may be a replacement, but it is not the same thing. These kinds of technicalities matter in law.....

sink · 09-06-2008 03:44PM

democrates wrote: »

That's it, an individual with too much untrammeled power is far too risky. When ordinary decent Americans elect a president, it is on the understanding that Congress, the Senate and the constitution provide checks on the presidents power, just as proposed EU positions have checks and balances.

However, bring on a crisis, and hasty changes may occur. Right now in America citizens can be illegally wiretapped, taken off the streets, habeus corpus is suspended, torture is approved, the Geneva convention ignored, private military contractors held above the law. 1984.

The real kicker, because we've all written Bush off as a nut, is that with all this and more going on, the democrat dominated congress refuse to impeach. It seems to me that the interests of the body politic takes higher priority over what's best for citizens, so I keep coming back to the solution of citizen involvement.

But as has been pointed out countless times to you direct rule has it's own very large downsides. That is why the parliamentary system is a good compromise between direct rule and directly elected leaders. We can each argue this till we're blue in the face, can't we just agree to disagree?

sink · 09-06-2008 03:46PM

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

Are you really that naive to believe that VRT was not a direct replacement for import duty on cars and ,as such, is not effectively the same thing?

No but in legal terms they are quiet different. Look i'm not a supporter of VRT i'm not sure we should have it. I'm just arguing against your claims that it's illegal and the EU is somehow responsible.

TheBigLebowski · 09-06-2008 03:46PM

molloyjh wrote: »

It may be a replacement, but it is not the same thing. These kinds of technicalities matter in law.....

Article 25 of the European Community Treaty prohibits not only customs duties but also charges having equivalent effect.

TheBigLebowski · 09-06-2008 03:49PM

sink wrote: »

No but in legal terms they are quiet different. Look i'm not a supporter of VRT i'm not sure we should have it. I'm just arguing against your claims that it's illegal and the EU is somehow responsible.

OK well I never actually said it was illegal but I do think it should be abolished under the free movement of goods.

And I also never said the EU was responsible.

suimhneas · 09-06-2008 03:53PM

From a fishing community and the EU has not improved our lot one tiny bit, as a matter of fact it hampered us at every turn, its not going to get anywhere voting yes, have heard noting to convince me otherwise, ill vote no to europe rest of my life. everyone is harping on about the benifits of been in europe, what are they? they said all this scare mongering when britan refused the euro, they would pay dearly for it, well clearly the have not and im taking my chances anyways, if it send the country back 40 i say good, believe it or not life was better in certain places 40 years ago.

molloyjh · 09-06-2008 03:55PM

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

Article 25 of the European Community Treaty prohibits not only customs duties but also charges having equivalent effect.

Believe me I do understand your point, but as I'm sure you've been through with sink, it can be argued that this does not have the same effect given that we do not produce cars here and therefore cannot (legally speaking) tell if it truly is a registration tax or import duty. Its a loophole, nothing more. And I agree that it was a direct replacement for import duties utilising the loophole, but as long as the law itself doesn't specify that it is for foreign made cars only then in theory it would have to apply to domestically manufactured motors aswell. We just don't have any. From that perspective therefore it is technically legal. Either way it has nothing to do with Lisbon and decisions on Lisbon should not be tainted by the VRT issue.

molloyjh · 09-06-2008 04:00PM

suimhneas wrote: »

From a fishing community and the EU has not improved our lot one tiny bit, as a matter of fact it hampered us at every turn, its not going to get anywhere voting yes, have heard noting to convince me otherwise, ill vote no to europe rest of my life. everyone is harping on about the benifits of been in europe, what are they? they said all this scare mongering when britan refused the euro, they would pay dearly for it, well clearly the have not and im taking my chances anyways, if it send the country back 40 i say good, believe it or not life was better in certain places 40 years ago.

Honestly, thats your call. You seem to be basing your decisions on something other than ignorance and/or myths so fair play to you. However you must realise that, even though there are aspects that you feel the EU has not helped you in, you must recogise the overall national impacts aswell. Infrastructure probably being the biggest. We have, as a nation overall, benefited from the EU. And those benefits will continue (and be quicker to appear) if Lisbon passes - at least thats the theory. That will not do much to improve your situation though from a fishing perspective I wouldn't imagine. So if you feel No is right for you, then so be it.

suimhneas · 09-06-2008 04:05PM

[You seem to be basing your decisions on something other than ignorance and/or myths so fair play to you.

and you decide that im ignorant all by yourself? why would anyone vote yes with the likes of you voting yes. you have no idea who i am or what i am and for you to call me "ignorant" shows your IQ levels more than mine. As for been based on myth, Get with the real world, im not a sheep thats willing to follow the pack and vote yes " for the geater good" when i have no feckin idea what the lisbon treaty is, neither do you, before you start.

sink · 09-06-2008 04:11PM

suimhneas wrote: »

and you decide that im ignorant all by yourself? why would anyone vote yes with the likes of you voting yes. you have no idea who i am or what i am and for you to call me "ignorant" shows your IQ levels more than mine. As for been based on myth, Get with the real world, im not a sheep thats willing to follow the pack and vote yes " for the geater good" when i have no feckin idea what the lisbon treaty is, neither do you, before you start.

Well he did not actually call you ignorant. He in fact said you were not basing you're decision on ignorance and therefore implied you are not ignorant. Which is almost a compliment, I wouldn't take offence to it. I for one can see your point of view and sympathise but I also look at the good the EU has done to the rest of the economy. You of course are free to vote your conscience and you do have a legitimate gripe whereas most people voting no do not.

Hitman Actual · 09-06-2008 04:11PM

suimhneas wrote: »

[You seem to be basing your decisions on something other than ignorance and/or myths so fair play to you.

and you decide that im ignorant all by yourself? why would anyone vote yes with the likes of you voting yes. you have no idea who i am or what i am and for you to call me "ignorant" shows your IQ levels more than mine. As for been based on myth, Get with the real world, im not a sheep thats willing to follow the pack and vote yes " for the geater good" when i have no feckin idea what the lisbon treaty is, neither do you, before you start.

Wow. Reread his post.

molloyjh · 09-06-2008 04:12PM

suimhneas wrote: »

[You seem to be basing your decisions on something other than ignorance and/or myths so fair play to you.

and you decide that im ignorant all by yourself? why would anyone vote yes with the likes of you voting yes. you have no idea who i am or what i am and for you to call me "ignorant" shows your IQ levels more than mine. As for been based on myth, Get with the real world, im not a sheep thats willing to follow the pack and vote yes " for the geater good" when i have no feckin idea what the lisbon treaty is, neither do you, before you start.

I said you were basing your decisions on something other than ignorance, meaning I don't think you are at all. I have heard people (and not nessecarily here on these forums) saying they are voting No because it makes the EU "more sneaky" and the likes. You are voting from personal experience, which has a hell of a lot more weight. I am genuinely applauding your decision (if applauding is the right word). I have no problem with you having a different opinion as me and don't expect anything from anyone other than to make up their own minds based on something at least resembling facts. Ultimately all the Lisbon Treaty will be doing is making the EU more efficient and streamlined. My point was that for me thats a positive so I'll be voting Yes, but from the sounds of it the ends won't have much in the way of positive effect for you so I understand why you're voting that way.

BTW I have a fairly decent idea what the Treaty is about, I'm no expert, but I do have the jist of it.

suimhneas · 09-06-2008 04:16PM

sorry, my fault should have read your post properly, jumped to conclusion and i do owe you an apology so sorry.

molloyjh · 09-06-2008 04:18PM

suimhneas wrote: »

sorry, my fault should have read your post properly, jumped to conclusion and i do owe you an apology so sorry.

No hassle....we've all done it ourselves. At least I know I have...

stevoman · 09-06-2008 04:20PM

Im voting No because i mistrust the goverment. I voted No in the first Nice referendum and what way did democracy speak? they had a second referendum because they didnt get their way. Ridiculous! I will never trust any fianna fail goverment when it comes to an EU referendum again.

jmayo · 09-06-2008 04:20PM

molloyjh wrote: »

Honestly, thats your call. You seem to be basing your decisions on something other than ignorance and/or myths so fair play to you. However you must realise that, even though there are aspects that you feel the EU has not helped you in, you must recogise the overall national impacts aswell. Infrastructure probably being the biggest. We have, as a nation overall, benefited from the EU. And those benefits will continue (and be quicker to appear) if Lisbon passes - at least thats the theory. That will not do much to improve your situation though from a fishing perspective I wouldn't imagine. So if you feel No is right for you, then so be it.

Having a go at somebody related to the Irish fishing industry for having no love for Europe and saying their decisins are based on myths or ignorance is actually showing more ignorance to the fact that the Irish fishing industry was affectively sold out throughout Ireland's great EEC, EU relationship.
The Irish fishing grounds were opened up to the Europeans and helped make the likes of the Spanish fishing fleet/industry rich.
The government under the urging of the farming lobby sold out fishing in order to climb on board the CAP gravy train.
The governmnet did little to help the Irish fishing fleet to compete and protect it from the likes of Spanish encroachment.

Yes, we have as a nation benefitted from CAP and structural funds but it is a bit rich to ask someone whose industry, indeed their and their families way of life has been decimated to fawn at the prospect of more of the same.

Also do not be under any illusion that the EU gravy train is going to continue to stop at station Ireland. We are going to be net payer not receivers in future.
Structural funds will be diverted to Eastern Europe (where they are needed) and the CAP train has left the station for good with conductor Mendelson on board.

Oh and for most people based in fishing areas in West, NorthWest, SouthWest the roads are still shi**, so they haven't seen much of the great infrastrucure development funded by EU.
Just my tuppence worth.

molloyjh · 09-06-2008 04:22PM

jmayo wrote: »

Having a go at somebody related to the Irish fishing industry for having no love for Europe and calling them ignorant is actually showing more ignorance to the fact that the Irish fishing industry was affectively sold out throughout Ireland's great EEC, EU relationship.
The Irish fishing grounds were opened up to the Europeans and helped make the likes of the Spanish fishing fleet/industry rich.
The government under the urging of the farming lobby sold out fishing in order to climb on board the CAP gravy train.
The governmnet did little to help the Irish fishing fleet to compete and protect it from the likes of Spanish encroachment.

Yes, we have as a nation benefitted from CAP and structural funds but it is a bit rich to ask someone whose industry, indeed their and their families way of life has been decimated to fawn at the prospect of more of the same.

Also do not be under any illusion that the EU gravy train is going to continue to stop at station Ireland. We are going to be net payer not receivers in future.
Structural funds will be diverted to Eastern Europe (where they are needed) and the CAP train has left the station for good with conductor Mendelson on board.

Oh and for most people based in fishing areas in West, NorthWest, SouthWest the roads are still shi**, so they haven't seen much of the great infrastrucure development funded by EU.
Just my tuppence worth.

Yikes did I phrase that badly or what!

I was not saying he was ignorant, quite the opposite.....see above posts.....

jmayo · 09-06-2008 04:26PM

molloyjh wrote: »

Yikes did I phrase that badly or what!
I was not saying he was ignorant, quite the opposite.....see above posts.....

Sorry about that ... you did say he/she wasn't basing opinion on ignorance and I got it wrong. Need to read more carefully like the nots and nors etc and stopping picking up on particualr words.
I can't keep up on this bloody thread :mad:
Even when I editied it i got it twisted :mad:

But my point about gravy train over for us and fact I can see why anyone nearing fishing area would be peed off still stands.:mad:

oscarBravo · 09-06-2008 05:43PM

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

Any politician knocking on my door and canvassing for a yes vote will associate my no vote with a protest against VRT.

...and will file it under "irrelevant" along with the dozens of other reasons they've been given that have nothing whatsoever to do with the treaty.

Besides, have you seen what the equivalent of VRT is in Denmark?

Hotblack Desiato · 09-06-2008 07:15PM

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

Now seriously, do you really believe that?
If so can you answer a few questions?

1. Why do customs and excise do the chasing if it's just about registering cars?

Why NOT them? VRT is a tax, C&E collect taxes.
Just because the word 'customs' is in there, doesn't mean that all their work is to do with goods crossing borders, it isn't by any means.

2. Why does it cost more to register a more expensive car than a cheaper car if all they're doing is registering the car?

Because the Government decided it should be that way, and the Irish people, in their near infinite wisdom, have continued to elect governments which support this policy.
Why does it cost more to tax a 2000cc car than a 1000cc one? Why did it cost more, even before the emissions-related changes? There is only one reason, the purchasers of larger/more expensive cars are willing and able to pay more and the Government naturally wants to get the best return from taxation that it can.

VRT was an obvious replacement for import duty on cars and anyone who says otherwise is talking sheeite.

You are right in the sense that it is replacing one form of taxation on motorists with another. But I thought that was obvious to everyone.

Anywho, call it a protest vote or call it what you want but that's why I'm voting no.

You can vote for whatever reason you like, just don't expect it to change anything when your reason has got nothing at all to do with the issue being voted on. Like I said earlier, you might as well make your decision to vote based on the weather on polling day.

ixtlan · 09-06-2008 08:19PM

jmayo wrote: »

the fact that the Irish fishing industry was affectively sold out throughout Ireland's great EEC, EU relationship.
The Irish fishing grounds were opened up to the Europeans and helped make the likes of the Spanish fishing fleet/industry rich.
The government under the urging of the farming lobby sold out fishing in order to climb on board the CAP gravy train.

As a yes voter I acknowledge this. Fishing is really the only area in Ireland where it seems likely we would have been better off outside the EU. The fishing industry was indeed sacrificed for developments in other area.

I do see that as harsh for the fishermen but if one takes into account the good of the entire nation I can see why successive politicians in effect sold them out. The needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few. We could have become a powerful fishing nation like Iceland, but this would not have given us a broad economic boost with widespread employment. It would have been limited, although very good for fishermen.

Ix.

nesf · 09-06-2008 11:08PM

ixtlan wrote: »

I do see that as harsh for the fishermen but if one takes into account the good of the entire nation I can see why successive politicians in effect sold them out.

We've a lot more farmers than fishermen and the farmers in this country are generally very well organised. We got CAP and gave up fisheries. Harsh on the fishermen, but predictable really if you want to be cynical about it.

The overall gain in welfare for the loss in the fishery sector far outweighed the losses. Cold comfort if you owned a bunch of trawlers though.

pencil · 10-06-2008 12:17AM

Just starting educating myself on Lisbon - was very undecided... coming around to no.

Voting No, mainly because Ireland will obliged to increase military spending... this is unpalatable to me, especially when our public health service is a unsatisfactory and children are 'schooled' in prefabs.

Still undecided, been reading (since tonight) about this Libertas crowd.. they look shady - this may swing me yet

sink · 10-06-2008 12:39AM

pencil wrote: »

Just starting educating myself on Lisbon - was very undecided... coming around to no.

Voting No, mainly because Ireland will obliged to increase military spending... this is unpalatable to me, especially when our public health service is a unsatisfactory and children are 'schooled' in prefabs.

Still undecided, been reading (since tonight) about this Libertas crowd.. they look shady - this may swing me yet

Unfortunately you have been misled in regards to military spending. The exact wording of the treaty obliges us to improve our military capability, this does not necessarily entail more spending. Improving capability can be done by redeploying existing funds to buy better equipment or to improve training all with no added bill to the tax payer.

Why are YOU voting no ?

Comments