Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why are YOU voting no ?

Options
1…7891113

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,483 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    So ignore them, and everyone trying to bully (and deceive) you into a no vote.

    Domestic and international leaders are trying to scare and mislead people in a bid to distort their voting preference? Is this not wrong? I'm reminded of the old English tradition of landlords saying vote for my candidate or I'll evict you to their tenants (prior to secret ballot).
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    With all due respect, if you think this, you haven't been paying attention. Search this forum for posts by sink.

    Just give me the gist of it then. I'm not saying here that there are not, buried deep within the document if anyone is brave enough to seek it out, good reasons to vote yes, what I'm saying is that I have not come across anything said by politicians for the yes side that shows the substantive benefits contained within lisbon. Changes were made in Nice, why are we making more changes a few years later when we could have easily anticipated these changes before?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It's not the Constitution in all but name. It contains substantive changes, many of which explicitly address many of the concerns that led to a rejection of the Constitution.

    Go on...It seems to me very similar to the constitution, what with the charter of fundamental rights and the change from specific competencies of the EU to general competencies.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    What's the difference?

    The treaty is almost meaningless unless read as amendments to the ToA, and although I think libertas did publish a consolidated treaty, I wouldn't necessarily trust it.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    First, the 27 countries have agreed (in the Nice treaty) that they don't need 27 commissioners. Second, the Commission is the equivalent of a cabinet, not a parliament, and it doesn't have enough useful ministries to go around.

    Well you only really need one commissioner, but having more can be better. If people want a commissioner, I don't see why we all can't have one. Germany, France and the UK can have 3, and some of the other larger countries can have 2 if they like. I don't agree that the commission is the equivalent of a cabinet in that it doesn't have full executive power, being ultimately subject to the Council of Ministers for their final say. Also the Commission is sometimes described as the most technocratic institution, so having more people with a broader experience range can only be a good thing. Finally, and cynically, if there are more commissioners then the EU cannot move as quickly as it is, and this cooling effect is needed to assauge euro-sceptics.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    That's brainwashing at work. If they're not relevant, they shouldn't factor into your criteria at all.

    I find it unpleasant that I am urged to vote no as a vote against abortion and gay marriages as though these were such obviously evil things that I had to vote no on the off chance they would come in.


  • Options
    #303
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Just give me the gist of it then. I'm not saying here that there are not, buried deep within the document if anyone is brave enough to seek it out, good reasons to vote yes, what I'm saying is that I have not come across anything said by politicians for the yes side that shows the substantive benefits contained within lisbon. Changes were made in Nice, why are we making more changes a few years later when we could have easily anticipated these changes before?



    I am not affiliated with any campaign, nor am I a supporter of any particular party. My 10 top reasons for voting yes are.

    1. Increase of power to the European Parliament.
    The parliament currently votes on only 80% legislation, the Lisbon Treaty increases this to 95%. The parliament currently only approves 20% of the budget, this will be increased to 100%

    2. The commission is slimmed down fairly and all states are represented equally
    Under the Nice treaty the commission will be slimmed down in 2009. However the rules are not yet set, Lisbon sets those rules in a manner which gives 100% equality to all states big and small. The larger states originally wanted a permanent commissioner and all the small states would rotate. The Irish delegation got them to agree to agree to a binding system of equality. If the treaty does not pass this is back on the table.

    3. Permanent President of the European Council
    The current system for President of the European Council rotates between states every six months. The head of government of each state fills the role, this causes the President to push his/her countries agenda often against the will of others. The Lisbon treaty replaces this system with an elected President by the European council for a two and a half year term. The new President will be obligated to do what is best for everyone not just one individual state.

    4. The Councils must meet in the open.
    At present the European Council and the Council of Ministers meet behind closed doors. This arouses suspicion in the public as they do not get to see how deals are reached. Under the Lisbon treaty the Councils must meet in the open providing valuable transparency.

    5. Energy and the Environment become greater EU competencies
    Ireland has a minuscule amount of power and influence in these areas. The EU can provide better legislation and act more effectively for our benefit than we can on our own.

    6. Greater role for EU peacekeepers
    The treaty provides for a greater role for EU militaries to co-operate on UN mandated peacekeeping missions, while guaranteeing our neutrality.

    7. Includes charter of human rights
    For the first time EU all laws will be based on a charter of rights guaranteeing all EU citizens human rights.

    8. Increases co-operation in Justice and Policing
    The treaty increases the ability of national police forces and judiciary to combat international crime such as drug smuggling and people trafficking.

    9. The two foreign policy posts are merged into one
    The Lisbon creates an new role as the High Representative For Foreign affairs. It merges the two positions of 'High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy' with the 'European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy'. This is to provide a coherent and consistent voice for Europe in the international sphere. Currently there are so many people representing the foreign policy of the EU, few governments are clear who to contact in regards to specific areas.

    10. Three pillar structure scrapped and merged into one structure
    The Lisbon treaty merges the three pillars of the EU into one single organisation. This is designed to improve strategic alignment trough better communications and control and to cut down on costs and bureaucracy by eliminating unnecessary duplicate rolls and reducing staff.


  • Options
    #304
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,483 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    alexanderomahon wrote: »
    You never answered my question. Why are other countries not getting a vote? Don't say it's because there gaovernment system doesn't require one. The truth is becuase it woul dnot pass and you know that.

    No, it really is because their constitutions don't require one. To be honest, of all the legislation that comes out of the EU, treaties are not the most important by a long shot. EU legislation on Immigration, Extradition and criminal law can have far more serious consequences than the treaties. The treaties are largely formalising documents, setting down in writing what has already been agreed should happen. But because it is an international treaty that could affect our soverignty, and because of the curious wording of art 29 Bunreacht na hEireann, we can only adopt it by referrendum (see Crotty v An Taoiseach).


  • Options
    #305
    johnnyq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 641 ✭✭✭johnnyq


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    So ignore them, and everyone trying to bully (and deceive) you into a no vote.

    To be fair we expect more from our democratically elected taoiseach than to threaten us more so than nobodys saying 'it will cost you'. In fact the Sinn fein campaign to their credit have not been threatening at all and are making valid suggestions for future negotiations, pity the french government and barrosso aren't more enlightened.

    OB wrote:
    It's not the Constitution in all but name. It contains substantive changes, many of which explicitly address many of the concerns that led to a rejection of the Constitution.

    Again to be fair, how many substantive changes can be fit into a document that is accepted to be 96% the same? The changes are cosmetic, people won't be fooled into thinking otherwise.

    OB wrote:
    What's the difference? First, the 27 countries have agreed (in the Nice treaty) that they don't need 27 commissioners. Second, the Commission is the equivalent of a cabinet, not a parliament, and it doesn't have enough useful ministries to go around.

    That's why I think there should be sub commissioners just like we have junior ministers. It's hardly impossible to incorporate, we in little Ireland handle it quite nicely.


  • Options
    #306
    johnnyq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 641 ✭✭✭johnnyq


    sink wrote: »
    I am not affiliated with any campaign, nor am I a supporter of any particular party. My 10 top reasons for voting yes are.

    Slightly irrelevant in the why to vote no thread, sink ;)

    Yes some of these changes are good things and I would vote for them if they weren't also packaged with the bad things like endorsing the arms industry, loss of so many vetos, unelected foreign minister and so on. Europe really can be so much better than this.

    It's a pity really that much of the debate has resorted to threats especially from people you'd expect better from. :(


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,483 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    sink wrote: »
    1. Increase of power to the European Parliament.
    The parliament currently votes on only 80% legislation, the Lisbon Treaty increases this to 95%. The parliament currently only approves 20% of the budget, this will be increased to 100%
    Another inch in the mile to close the democratic deficit.
    sink wrote: »
    2. The commission is slimmed down fairly and all states are represented equally
    Under the Nice treaty the commission will be slimmed down in 2009. However the rules are not yet set, Lisbon sets those rules in a manner which gives 100% equality to all states big and small. The larger states originally wanted a permanent commissioner and all the small states would rotate. The Irish delegation got them to agree to agree to a binding system of equality. If the treaty does not pass this is back on the table.

    Damned if you do, damned if you don't, eh?
    sink wrote: »
    3. Permanent President of the European Council
    The current system for President of the European Council rotates between states every six months. The head of government of each state fills the role, this causes the President to push his/her countries agenda often against the will of others. The Lisbon treaty replaces this system with an elected President by the European council for a two and a half year term. The new President will be obligated to do what is best for everyone not just one individual state.
    I think it's abundantly clear that despite the veneer of commissioners being representatives of Europe rather than their country, this is not really the case. So what's to guarantee that the new president will be obligated to do what's best for everyone any more than the political pressures that obliged former presidents to do so. Who will elect this president, and why do we want them pushing their agenda for 5 times as long as the current presidents?
    sink wrote: »
    4. The Councils must meet in the open.
    At present the European Council and the Council of Ministers meet behind closed doors. This arouses suspicion in the public as they do not get to see how deals are reached. Under the Lisbon treaty the Councils must meet in the open providing valuable transparency.

    This doesn't require a treaty, they can simply allow press into meetings.
    sink wrote: »
    5. Energy and the Environment become greater EU competencies
    Ireland has a minuscule amount of power and influence in these areas. The EU can provide better legislation and act more effectively for our benefit than we can on our own.

    Everything will now be an EU competency, mind you that has been the case on an ad hoc basis for a good while now. They don't need competencies enumerated in these areas as they are already legislating in them.
    sink wrote: »
    6. Greater role for EU peacekeepers
    The treaty provides for a greater role for EU militaries to co-operate on UN mandated peacekeeping missions, while guaranteeing our neutrality.

    They either do it on a UN mandate or they don't. If they do, why not just go under the UN flag rather than the EU flag. If they don't, I wouldn't want the EU acting without UN support. But more fundamentally, Irish soilders have had the option to go abroad on UN service, whereas they might have to go abroad on orders due to EU obligations. Also, I would imagine this will require an increase in military spending. I think we should be reducing military spending as a lot of it is unnecessary/better used elsewhere.
    sink wrote: »
    7. Includes charter of human rights
    For the first time EU all laws will be based on a charter of rights guaranteeing all EU citizens human rights.
    Member states are required to sign up to the ECHR anyway, which is IMO a much better drafted document and will prove more efficient into the future. The charter is not drafted very well, and this could lead to confusion as to rights. For example, we already have the conflict between the balance between free speech and reputation in Irish law and in ECHR law, if we add an EU dimension into the mix who knows where the balance lies (thus leading to long and costly litigation....I'm sold).
    sink wrote: »
    8. Increases co-operation in Justice and Policing
    The treaty increases the ability of national police forces and judiciary to combat international crime such as drug smuggling and people trafficking.
    They do that anyway, with varing degrees of success. We don't need lisbon to continue on the justice front (although we lose the take it or leave it option re certain justice legislation).
    sink wrote: »
    9. The two foreign policy posts are merged into one
    The Lisbon creates an new role as the High Representative For Foreign affairs. It merges the two positions of 'High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy' with the 'European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy'. This is to provide a coherent and consistent voice for Europe in the international sphere. Currently there are so many people representing the foreign policy of the EU, few governments are clear who to contact in regards to specific areas.
    Isn't this one of the objections to the Constitution - i.e. that it makes the EU more like a superstate? What would happen here where, for example, France and Germany are against America invading a country, the UK and Spain are for invading that country, and Ireland is sitting on the fence. What does this coherent and consistent voice for Europe say in the internation sphere? Maybe we should get Bertie Aherne as this single voice so that it is so incoherent and equivocal that it accurately represents the lack of consensus in the EU.
    sink wrote: »
    10. Three pillar structure scrapped and merged into one structure
    The Lisbon treaty merges the three pillars of the EU into one single organisation. This is designed to improve strategic alignment trough better communications and control and to cut down on costs and bureaucracy by eliminating unnecessary duplicate rolls and reducing staff.

    Or is it to merge EU competencies into one general "EU can do whatever it wants" pillar?


  • Options
    #308
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,793 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Domestic and international leaders are trying to scare and mislead people in a bid to distort their voting preference? Is this not wrong? I'm reminded of the old English tradition of landlords saying vote for my candidate or I'll evict you to their tenants (prior to secret ballot).
    I'm not sure why you're reminded of that, because there's no comparison.

    What political leader, in Ireland or elsewhere, has threatened negative consequences in the event of a "no" vote?

    Let's be clear, now: I'm talking about threats as opposed to warnings. If I told you not to walk down a particular street because a building might collapse on you, that's a warning. If I told you not to walk down the street or else I'd drive over you with my car, that's a threat.

    With that distinction clear, who has threatened you, and with what?


  • Options
    #309
    dathi1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,695 ✭✭✭dathi1


    I'm voting No purely on the threat to our Corp tax. Thats it.


  • Options
    #310
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Another inch in the mile to close the democratic deficit.
    The level of either lack of understanding or deliberate mis information towards the workings of the EU by the No side in this debate astounds me.
    It is the council of ministers that have the final say in laws passed in the EU.
    Everyone of those is democratically elected.
    The EU parliament must now vote on 95% of legislation or it wont pass and on all of the budget.

    Thats not a democratic deficit.


  • Options
    #311
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    dathi1 wrote: »
    I'm voting No purely on the threat to our Corp tax. Thats it.
    There is none.

    Other countries can always change their rates to compete with us whether Lisbon is passed or not.
    No country can change ours and neither can the EU without our permission.

    So wheres your logic?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The level of either lack of understanding or deliberate mis information towards the workings of the EU by the No side in this debate astounds me.
    It is the council of ministers that have the final say in laws passed in the EU.
    Everyone of those is democratically elected.
    The EU parliament must now vote on 95% of legislation or it wont pass and on all of the budget.

    Thats not a democratic deficit.

    I took what he said as meaning that it is becoming more democratic by closing the democratic deficit???


  • Options
    #313
    dathi1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,695 ✭✭✭dathi1


    Other countries can always change their rates to compete with us whether Lisbon is passed or not.
    For some reason they havent in the past or are unable to do so.


    Article 113 of the Lisbon Treaty specifically inserts a new obligation on the European Council to act to avoid “distortion of competition” in respect of indirect taxes. The proposals for a common consolidated tax base and the commitment of the French government to pursue it combined with a weakening of Ireland’s voice in Europe through the loss of a permanent Commissioner and halving of its voting weight represent a clear and present danger to our tax competitiveness.



    In a nutshell that's enough for me to vote No. I don’t want to be told in 1-2 years that "we done our best, but we're all on a level playing field in Europe now as Tax Harmonisation was inevitable. The Irish People voted Yes and we have to make do with what we have"

    Just like the Water Tax on our free education system. They'll say "its an EU directive" I run 2 limited companies. Can’t risk it.

    No way.


  • Options
    #314
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    dathi1 wrote: »
    For some reason they havent in the past or are unable to do so.


    Article 113 of the Lisbon Treaty specifically inserts a new obligation on the European Council to act to avoid “distortion of competition” in respect of indirect taxes. The proposals for a common consolidated tax base and the commitment of the French government to pursue it combined with a weakening of Ireland’s voice in Europe through the loss of a permanent Commissioner and halving of its voting weight represent a clear and present danger to our tax competitiveness.



    In a nutshell that's enough for me to vote No. I don’t want to be told in 1-2 years that "we done our best, but we're all on a level playing field in Europe now as Tax Harmonisation was inevitable. The Irish People voted Yes and we have to make do with what we have"

    Just like the Water Tax on our free education system. They'll say "its an EU directive" I run 2 limited companies. Can’t risk it.

    No way.

    I suggest you read through some of these threads. The tax issue has been dealt with countless times at this stage. First of all the loss of a Commissioner could/should have no impact as the Commissioner does not represent us and may end up working in a Department completely unrelated to taxation. So that doesn't facotr into this discussion at all.

    Secondly, all member states retain the right to veto any plans for tax harmonisation. This matter remains a unanimous voting matter. Even if we could be pressured into not using our veto we aren't the only country in the EU that don't want tax harmonisation. The UK are opposed to it aswell and so they will vote against it.

    There is no threat to our corporate tax rate from Lisbon.


  • Options
    #315
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,075 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    dathi1 wrote: »
    For some reason they havent in the past or are unable to do so.


    Article 113 of the Lisbon Treaty specifically inserts a new obligation on the European Council to act to avoid “distortion of competition” in respect of indirect taxes. The proposals for a common consolidated tax base and the commitment of the French government to pursue it combined with a weakening of Ireland’s voice in Europe through the loss of a permanent Commissioner and halving of its voting weight represent a clear and present danger to our tax competitiveness.



    In a nutshell that's enough for me to vote No. I don’t want to be told in 1-2 years that "we done our best, but we're all on a level playing field in Europe now as Tax Harmonisation was inevitable. The Irish People voted Yes and we have to make do with what we have"

    Just like the Water Tax on our free education system. They'll say "its an EU directive" I run 2 limited companies. Can’t risk it.

    No way.

    Have you read Scofflaw's post on the matter?

    I was a director* of a limited company when the Lisbon process started. The tax situation wasn't, isn't and won't be an issue for me. Not just that but all of the groups representing businesses in Ireland appear to be pro-Lisbon, even the one representing the US businesses located here for tax reasons.

    * Technically I still am, but the company is in the process of winding up.


  • Options
    #316
    dathi1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,695 ✭✭✭dathi1


    Even if we could be pressured into not using our veto we aren't the only country in the EU that don't want tax harmonisation. The UK are opposed to it aswell and so they will vote against it.

    Well the UK government is reeling by the recent relocation of companies to Ireland due to our 12.5% rate so I don't expect much back up from Gordon Brown.

    I suppose its a matter of trust on interpretation. Do I trust politicians with potential positions in an EU administration? No. I've seen some of the arguments here from Scoflaw etc and although I agree some of them are compelling, I won't risk it.


  • Options
    #317
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    dathi1 wrote: »
    For some reason they havent in the past or are unable to do so.


    Article 113 of the Lisbon Treaty specifically inserts a new obligation on the European Council to act to avoid “distortion of competition” in respect of indirect taxes. The proposals for a common consolidated tax base and the commitment of the French government to pursue it combined with a weakening of Ireland’s voice in Europe through the loss of a permanent Commissioner and halving of its voting weight represent a clear and present danger to our tax competitiveness.



    In a nutshell that's enough for me to vote No. I don’t want to be told in 1-2 years that "we done our best, but we're all on a level playing field in Europe now as Tax Harmonisation was inevitable. The Irish People voted Yes and we have to make do with what we have"

    Just like the Water Tax on our free education system. They'll say "its an EU directive" I run 2 limited companies. Can’t risk it.

    No way.
    Daithaí
    You are not quoting from the treaty there.
    You are quoting from some mis information pamphlet or other.

    Why is every business body saying the opposite to you?
    I'll tell you why-because no tax in Ireland can be changed without Irish government approval.
    Taxation changes via the EU are only via a unanimous council vote.
    Without the vote of the Irish government-there is no unanimity so it doesn't pass.

    Thats called a veto.

    Simple.


  • Options
    #318
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    dathi1 wrote: »
    Well the UK government is reeling by the recent relocation of companies to Ireland due to our 12.5% rate so I don't expect much back up from Gordon Brown.

    I suppose its a matter of trust on interpretation. Do I trust politicians with potential positions in an EU administration? No. I've seen some of the arguments here from Scoflaw etc and although I agree some of them are compelling, I won't risk it.

    I never said that the UK would use their veto to support us. That is a ludicrous idea. They are opposed to tax harmonisation themselves, more out of soverignty issues than anything. They have alreaddy stated that they would use the veto at any attempt to implement any tax harmonisation. Either way if they don't we still have the veto here too. All employer groups are supporting this treaty because of this.


  • Options
    #319
    dathi1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,695 ✭✭✭dathi1


    Why is every business body saying the opposite to you?
    I believe what IBEC said 18 months ago:

    Turlough O'Sullivan, director general of business lobby group IBEC, said: "I am absolutely convinced this is a Trojan horse to bring in common tax rates."

    I know he's done a Padriac Walsh on this now. I'll go with what IBEC stated then.

    Look its not just me...its a lot of buisness freinds say the same (in ISME), we're going for a No.


  • Options
    #320
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,793 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    What makes his position of 18 months ago any more trustworthy than his position now?


  • Options
    #321
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    dathi1 wrote: »
    I believe what IBEC said 18 months ago:

    Turlough O'Sullivan, director general of business lobby group IBEC, said: "I am absolutely convinced this is a Trojan horse to bring in common tax rates."

    I know he's done a Padriac Walsh on this now. I'll go with what IBEC states then.

    Look its not just me...its a lot of buisness freinds say the same (in ISME), we're going for a No.

    Both ourselves and the UK are opposed to this and can (and will) veto any moves to implement it. Our Corporate Tax is not under any threat.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Besides the rules on tax don't change. If what your worrying about is a real possibility, it is a possibility now Lisbon does not change anything in this area.


  • Options
    #323
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    molloyjh wrote: »
    Both ourselves and the UK are opposed to this and can (and will) veto any moves to implement it. Our Corporate Tax is not under any threat.

    Ourselves, the UK, most of the accession states in Eastern Europe, Sweden et al...


  • Options
    #324
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    nesf wrote: »
    Ourselves, the UK, most of the accession states in Eastern Europe, Sweden et al...

    I even read somewhere that the Germans are starting to take a second look at it. I only read it on the FF site and haven't been able to find anything to back it up yet though.


  • Options
    #325
    RDM_83
    Closed Accounts Posts: 213 ✭✭RDM_83


    I haven't read through all these posts (got to page 8) anyway I'm in general pro european for a number of reasons (one of the main ones is that soon they'l be fining ireland for there many and major environmental lapses) however I believe that one reason that many of the political establishment are so pro-europe is because it gives them a platform/job if their national electorate find them unaccountable (eg Mandelson and I'l bet Ahern will be in soon).
    Anyway thought I'd through in the link to this story so we can have and idea of the calibre and honesty of MEP's
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7266286.stm

    ps I'm all for tax equilisation as long as alcohol and tobacco prices are also equalised, very disapointed that the EU test case about people not needing to accompany the alcohol they own accross borders was shot down


  • Options
    #326
    What Vision?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 54 ✭✭What Vision?


    alexanderomahon wrote: »
    I will not vote yes because I see no reason to. I am happy with what we have. I like that we have a commissioner and I don't want europe more streamlined, because I don't want eu institutions to have a greater say in Ireland's affairs.

    the arrangements to date have worked very well for us. Why change?

    So we have 27 comissioners in the EU. At the moment every member has to have a comissioner. The Number of Comissioners is set at 27, so the EU can't accept any new members.

    If the number of comissioners was allowed to grow keeping the 1 for each member, what would their jobs be?

    Comissioner for Crossing T's and dotting the I's

    Imagine if every county in ireland had to have a goverment minister? 26 what would all the ministers be for.

    The Comissioner is supposed to be impartial to any member state including their own home country.

    We have to be practicle about this.

    Having more than 27 comissioners is nuts, having 27 is nuts, 18 is more practicle,
    Think of the cost of having 27 separate departments staffed, just so each goverment can put one of their "buddies" in a nice job.


  • Options
    #327
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,707 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    tax can be harmonised through leveys ;
    under this treaty those leveys cvould not be vetoed.

    simple


  • Options
    #328
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    Tigger wrote: »
    tax can be harmonised through leveys ;
    under this treaty those leveys cvould not be vetoed.

    simple

    What kind of levies? Remember there is free movement of goods within the EU so what exactly are you talking about?


  • Options
    #329
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Most people believe I am xenophobic and racist but this not the issue. I have the firm belief that the EU worked better as a smaller group. We already had trouble working with 15 member states. Now the situation is clearly worse with 27 member states. How do you expect to reach a consensus with so many countries? If you look at the legal texts adopted by the EU since the 2004 enlargment, their main substance has been reduced to ashes and their purpose has been lost. That is because noone agrees and texts have become very minimalist.

    Indeed. Hence the institutional changes in the Lisbon Treaty.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #330
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    kingcomrade wrote: »
    The Lisbon Treaty is supposed to remedy to these problems but let's not forget that states are still sovereign despite joining the EU. There are still fields that fall under unanimity and some countries will clearly oppose to european projects.


    Best regards.

    Welcome to democracy.....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    jmayo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,168 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    Ok the Irish government has a veto on tax changes.
    But did anybody notice what it took to get the government to come out and state that they would veto WTO agreement.

    It took the threat from the Irish Farm organisations and agribussinesses to scupper the referendum on Lisbon to finally force the government to get off their ars** and state they would use the veto.

    If this is the case in the future, I can't wait to see how ready they will be to defend our corporation tax :rolleyes:

    Some people reckon we will have a more democratic EU, but does anybody stop to think that this probably will be good for Europe but bad for Ireland. We will not have the representation to push through proposals or wrangle deals like in the past.
    We managed to punch above our weight in the current/old system.
    With more power with EU parliament we may lose out.


Advertisement