Why are YOU voting no ?

molloyjh · 11-06-2008 3:54pm

jmayo wrote: »

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:

If they don't defend our corporation tax we could end up loosing a lot of our foreign investment. Not just that but the businessmen in the country would start to be "out f pocket". This would be bad news for the politicians so in their own self interest they will veto.

jmayo · 11-06-2008 3:57pm

molloyjh wrote: »

If they don't defend our corporation tax we could end up loosing a lot of our foreign investment. Not just that but the businessmen in the country would start to be "out f pocket". This would be bad news for the politicians so in their own self interest they will veto.

So do you think farmers going to the wall, the Irish beef and dairy industry chopping jobs because of cheap competition from Argentina, Brazil and NZ would be good for the country ?
How many rural TDs would welcome the local creamery or meat factory closing and farmers selling/moving to Dublin ?

VoidStarNull · 11-06-2008 4:14pm

jmayo wrote: »

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 was not in Ireland's interests to state at this point of the WTO negotiations the conditions under which we will veto the agreement. We are only revealing our hand at a too early stage. "SO you really care about agriculture do you? So then we're going to stick it to you on everything else".

Unfortunately the farmers put their own narrow interests in front of Ireland's national interest.

craichoe · 11-06-2008 4:21pm

VoidStarNull wrote: »

It was not in Ireland's interests to state at this point of the WTO negotiations the conditions under which we will veto the agreement. We are only revealing our hand at a too early stage. "SO you really care about agriculture do you? So then we're going to stick it to you on everything else".

Unfortunately the farmers put their own narrow interests in front of Ireland's national interest.

Of course they bloody do, does anyone else in the Healthcare, Gardai, Civil Service, Private sector put the country ahead of themselves ?

No they bloody don't, the only difference is the farmers are organised.

jmayo · 11-06-2008 4:29pm

VoidStarNull wrote: »

It was not in Ireland's interests to state at this point of the WTO negotiations the conditions under which we will veto the agreement. We are only revealing our hand at a too early stage. "SO you really care about agriculture do you? So then we're going to stick it to you on everything else".

Unfortunately the farmers put their own narrow interests in front of Ireland's national interest.

Why shouldn't they put their interests first ?
So is it in Irish national interests to affectively decimate an industry or maybe anybody working in agribusiness (including farming) is fair game for unemployment according to your opinion.

Maybe we should all work in the great mythical service industry - oh yeah we are all going to be investment bankers and insurance brokers in the great new Ireland. Hell the City in London is moving to Athlone and Frankfurt to Tralee.
Maybe we can all work in the IFSC and live in the Capital.
BTW agribusinesses are one of the few areas that we actually have our own multinationals Glanbia, Kerry to name two.
Name another indigenous industry apart from Smurfit and Ryanair that has cut it on world markets.
Don't mention our banks who have shown their great overseas potential in the ICI and Rusnak affairs.

VoidStarNull · 11-06-2008 5:44pm

jmayo wrote: »

So is it in Irish national interests to affectively decimate an industry or maybe anybody working in agribusiness (including farming) is fair game for unemployment according to your opinion.

I didn't suggest that. Only that, in a negotiation, you keep your cards as close to your chest as you can.

jmayo · 11-06-2008 5:50pm

Yes but there was interesting timeline given on Q&A while back about how the WTO talks/decisons could breakdown.
The WTO talks could cometo an end but the first council of ministers meeting would only take place about a month afterwards and then if they had to go back to WTO they would be nearly in autumn and there is no way that US can have major negotiations during runup to Presidential election.

Better off to let Mendolson know now that he can fec* off rather than let it drag on.

Scofflaw · 11-06-2008 7:52pm

jmayo wrote: »

Yes but there was interesting timeline given on Q&A while back about how the WTO talks/decisons could breakdown.
The WTO talks could cometo an end but the first council of ministers meeting would only take place about a month afterwards and then if they had to go back to WTO they would be nearly in autumn and there is no way that US can have major negotiations during runup to Presidential election.

Better off to let Mendolson know now that he can fec* off rather than let it drag on.

This is not a vote on the WTO deal.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Phototoxin · 11-06-2008 7:55pm

all the parties i dont trust are saying vote yes, so i will vote no.

both sides are being equally confusing and lying so its more logical to be conservative in this case

I'm pro life so the no vote is safer

and the immortal poster "People died for your freedom dont give it away"

johnnyq · 11-06-2008 8:01pm

Phototoxin wrote: »

all the parties i dont trust are saying vote yes, so i will vote no.

both sides are being equally confusing and lying so its more logical to be conservative in this case

I'm pro life so the no vote is safer

and the immortal poster "People died for your freedom dont give it away"

First, as a no voter myself, expect to be attacked for those reasons but it is important to acknowledge not to sign a document if you don't understand it. You have the options to vote no or abstain, so it's your choice.

johnnyskeleton · 11-06-2008 10:23pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not sure why you're reminded of that, because there's no comparison.

There is no comparision between one group of people saying "vote this way or else" and another group of people saying "vote this way or else"?

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

Domestically, Cowen has been threatening us about the negative consequences of a no vote. Internationally, Barrosso and Sarkozi have being doing it.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

Let's also be clear - the distinction between a threat and a warning is that a threat is made to induce people to do something. Politicans are not saying we will be kicked out of the EU if there is a no vote to make us be careful and think more about the treaty; they are saying it to induce us (unfairly) into voting yes. In any event, the "warnings" coming from the yes side are more akin to don't walk down the street or else I'll drive over you with my car than to don't walk down the street because a building might collapse on you.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

The political leaders of Ireland and the EU have threatened the people of Ireland with dire consequences (including being left behind or kicked out of the EU if we vote no). A warning would be if you vote no, there is not really that much scope for improvement, but we'll still let you stay in the EU because we respect your opinion. The consequences they are threatening are much worse than a mere friendly warning.

johnnyskeleton · 11-06-2008 10:32pm

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.

The democratic deficit is a phrase that has been used for decades about the disparity of power between the parliament and the other institutions. Don't accuse me of lack of understanding or deliberate mis information if you don't know that.

Also, don't twist my words, the closing of the democratic deficit is a good thing - more power to the parliament is a good thing IMO.

nesf · 11-06-2008 10:34pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The democratic deficit is a phrase that has been used for decades about the disparity of power between the parliament and the other institutions. Don't accuse me of lack of understanding or deliberate mis information if you don't know that.

It has been used by some sides for decades and how big the deficit is has been hotly contested. It's not been a universally held truth or anything.

sink · 11-06-2008 10:42pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Let's also be clear - the distinction between a threat and a warning is that a threat is made to induce people to do something. Politicans are not saying we will be kicked out of the EU if there is a no vote to make us be careful and think more about the treaty; they are saying it to induce us (unfairly) into voting yes. In any event, the "warnings" coming from the yes side are more akin to don't walk down the street or else I'll drive over you with my car than to don't walk down the street because a building might collapse on you.

I think you have your definitions mixed up. A threat is a warning of intent, as in 'If you do x and I'm warning you I'll to y' and then the person carries out y as threatened. A simple warning is telling someone of negative consequences that will happen, as in 'If you do x, y is likely to happen' without the person giving the warning taking any action themselves.

johnnyskeleton · 11-06-2008 10:42pm

nesf wrote: »

It has been used by some sides for decades and how big the deficit is has been hotly contested. It's not been a universally held truth or anything.

I know.

johnnyskeleton · 11-06-2008 10:55pm

sink wrote: »

I think you have your definitions mixed up. A threat is a warning of intent, as in 'If you do x and I'm warning you I'll to y' and then the person carries out y as threatened. A simple warning is telling someone of negative consequences that will happen, as in 'If you do x, y is likely to happen' without the person giving the warning taking any action themselves.

We can take this to the pedants forum if you like, but it is not essential that the person making the statement is also going to carry out the negative consequences. For example: The garda threatened the suspect that if he did not confess, the judge would find him guilty and lock him up for life. Here, the threat is valid even though the person making it is not the person who will carry out the threatend consequence. The important factor is that it is not said to him merely as a warning "By the way, if you don't confess and plead guilty you will get a higher sentence if convicted", but to induce the person to make the confession. Threat - from the old English thréat meaning pressure or oppression. If intention forms part of it (which is not always the case), it is that the person making the "warning" intends it to be believed by the person so that they will act in a certain way.

By the way, do you and oscarbravo take issue merely with my choice of words, or are you both denying that the yes campeign has been run on the basis of vote yes or we will be turfed out of Europe in one form or another.

sink · 11-06-2008 11:22pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

We can take this to the pedants forum if you like,

Semantics to be pedantic.:D

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

but it is not essential that the person making the statement is also going to carry out the negative consequences. For example: The garda threatened the suspect that if he did not confess, the judge would find him guilty and lock him up for life. Here, the threat is valid even though the person making it is not the person who will carry out the threatend consequence. The important factor is that it is not said to him merely as a warning "By the way, if you don't confess and plead guilty you will get a higher sentence if convicted", but to induce the person to make the confession. Threat - from the old English thréat meaning pressure or oppression. If intention forms part of it (which is not always the case), it is that the person making the "warning" intends it to be believed by the person so that they will act in a certain way.

I differ in my understanding of the term. I think you are incorrect in you assertion, but it looks like we will not agree, so lets just agree to disagree.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

By the way, do you and oscarbravo take issue merely with my choice of words, or are you both denying that the yes campeign has been run on the basis of vote yes or we will be turfed out of Europe in one form or another.

No I am not denying that! I happen to agree with it to a certain extent. There is no way out of it, the people in power throughout Europe spent 8 years toiling to get to this point, along the way the made many concessions to Ireland and other small nations and from their point of view we got and extremely good deal. They will not understand why we voted no, they will feel let down and betrayed in a way. That will have negative connotations for us when negotiating other treaties in the future. It will be more difficult for us to get concession because they will feel that we won't appreciate their sacrifice.

I don't think the sky will fall, or that we will be kicked out of the Union. Although if we become constant naysayers we just might at some point in the future be asked to leave.

johnnyskeleton · 12-06-2008 12:17am

sink wrote: »

Semantics to be pedantic.:D

Let's not be fastidious - there's such a thing as being too punctilious. Please don't correct my spelling.

sink wrote: »

I differ in my understanding of the term. I think you are incorrect in you assertion, but it looks like we will not agree, so lets just agree to disagree.

I agree, more matter less art.

sink wrote: »

No I am not denying that! I happen to agree with it to a certain extent. There is no way out of it, the people in power throughout Europe spent 8 years toiling to get to this point, along the way the made many concessions to Ireland and other small nations and from their point of view we got and extremely good deal. They will not understand why we voted no, they will feel let down and betrayed in a way. That will have negative connotations for us when negotiating other treaties in the future. It will be more difficult for us to get concession because they will feel that we won't appreciate their sacrifice.

Another failing of the government. If at the very least they could come to us and say "We negotiated this concession" (I think we did get a number of concessions but most of them were simply piggybacking on the UK) the Irish people might be more inclined to vote yes. But we are simply told to take our medicine, and for that reason, no matter how I vote, I can't see this amendment being passed.

sink wrote: »

I don't think the sky will fall, or that we will be kicked out of the Union. Although if we become constant naysayers we just might at some point in the future be asked to leave.

This is it though, if the government weren't making this argument I would be more inclined to vote yes. No rational person would believe that we would be kicked out for voting no. However, when told that we will be it gets our backs up.

If the yes side are going to treat us like children, we may as well act like children.

But the dilema I face is that I am quite pro EU, and a lot of things that the yes side are saying would be reasons for me to vote yes if I had come to those conclusions myself (e.g. losing respect in Europe, the changes being necessary for an expanded union) but I can't stand being threatened (or warned or politely cajoled) into thinking this. On the other hand, I find it hard to justify a no vote either.

I wish I coud have had an input into the drafting of the treaty - I know that you can't possibly have 300 million + people all having their say, but to give one small example, I think the charter of rights is extremely poorly drafted. It's not that the rights themselves are a problem, but their wording diverges greatly with the ECHR, and in a very real example you could have an EU directive on defamation law, and someone who sues a newspaper for defamation and wins X amount in Ireland. The newspaper goes off to the ECHR who say that freedom of expression is paramount and that X represents an unnecessary curtailment of that right, but the defamed person goes to the ECJ who say that X does not adequately compensate them for the loss to their reputation guaranteed as part of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and so we have two differing human rights cases both binding on Ireland. If anything, the EU should have made the ECHR and ECtHR decisions binding on it's institutions.

So, being nowhere nearer to a resolution of this admittedly technical argument, I think I'm just going to have to vote for a lie in tomorrow morning (edit: I mean later on).

sink · 12-06-2008 1:06am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Another failing of the government. If at the very least they could come to us and say "We negotiated this concession" (I think we did get a number of concessions but most of them were simply piggybacking on the UK) the Irish people might be more inclined to vote yes. But we are simply told to take our medicine, and for that reason, no matter how I vote, I can't see this amendment being passed.

I agree but I'm not going to vote no to imo a good treaty because of the governments failures, I didn't even vote for FF.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This is it though, if the government weren't making this argument I would be more inclined to vote yes. No rational person would believe that we would be kicked out for voting no. However, when told that we will be it gets our backs up.

If the yes side are going to treat us like children, we may as well act like children.

I believe doing so creates a positive feedback loop and we'll get nowhere, i.e. they'll treat us like children because we act like children and it just keeps spiralling.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But the dilema I face is that I am quite pro EU, and a lot of things that the yes side are saying would be reasons for me to vote yes if I had come to those conclusions myself (e.g. losing respect in Europe, the changes being necessary for an expanded union) but I can't stand being threatened (or warned or politely cajoled) into thinking this. On the other hand, I find it hard to justify a no vote either.

Life is full of gob****es, I don't let them dictate my life. I look at the facts and make decisions based on them, changing your opinion one way or the other is letting said gob****es impact you. If you ignore them they can't affect you.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I wish I coud have had an input into the drafting of the treaty - I know that you can't possibly have 300 million + people all having their say, but to give one small example, I think the charter of rights is extremely poorly drafted. It's not that the rights themselves are a problem, but their wording diverges greatly with the ECHR, and in a very real example you could have an EU directive on defamation law, and someone who sues a newspaper for defamation and wins X amount in Ireland. The newspaper goes off to the ECHR who say that freedom of expression is paramount and that X represents an unnecessary curtailment of that right, but the defamed person goes to the ECJ who say that X does not adequately compensate them for the loss to their reputation guaranteed as part of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and so we have two differing human rights cases both binding on Ireland. If anything, the EU should have made the ECHR and ECtHR decisions binding on it's institutions.

Afaik the judges of the ECJ believe that the CFR is only binding to EU law and ECHR is only binding to national law. So since the two have different jurisdictions they should not in theory conflict. Although I will wait for the courts to rule before I'm certain.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So, being nowhere nearer to a resolution of this admittedly technical argument, I think I'm just going to have to vote for a lie in tomorrow morning (edit: I mean later on).

Well gl which ever way you vote.

Dandelion6 · 12-06-2008 8:35am

1. In general I don't like the direction the EU has been taking. I think the balance between "community of sovereign states" and "federal superstate" is tilting too far in the latter direction.

2. There's too much emphasis on the free market. Recent decisions such as the ECJ in the Laval case, the order for Dublin to scrap its plans for free Wifi and the refusal to allow the Government ban credit card surcharges because they "distort competition" - these point to where the EU's priorities lie and they are not with the working people of Europe.

3. The requirements to build up military capability. There is no justification for Ireland doing so. And having travelled recently to some of the poorest corners of the EU, including Romania and Bulgaria, I think they definitely have better things they could be spending their money on. In terms of the requirement that member states come to the aid of each other in the event of an attack on one, these days most of the member states who are at risk of any sort of attack are at a risk at their own making, so I don't see why all the rest should be required to bail them out.

johnnyq · 12-06-2008 1:14pm

Dandelion6 wrote: »

1. In general I don't like the direction the EU has been taking. I think the balance between "community of sovereign states" and "federal superstate" is tilting too far in the latter direction.

2. There's too much emphasis on the free market. Recent decisions such as the ECJ in the Laval case, the order for Dublin to scrap its plans for free Wifi and the refusal to allow the Government ban credit card surcharges because they "distort competition" - these point to where the EU's priorities lie and they are not with the working people of Europe.

3. The requirements to build up military capability. There is no justification for Ireland doing so. And having travelled recently to some of the poorest corners of the EU, including Romania and Bulgaria, I think they definitely have better things they could be spending their money on. In terms of the requirement that member states come to the aid of each other in the event of an attack on one, these days most of the member states who are at risk of any sort of attack are at a risk at their own making, so I don't see why all the rest should be required to bail them out.

I totally echo what you are saying there. At least with a no vote some of them can be changed.

With a yes vote that opportunity is gone (possibly for a very long time)

molloyjh · 12-06-2008 1:18pm

johnnyq wrote: »

I totally echo what you are saying there. At least with a no vote some of them can be changed.

With a yes vote that opportunity is gone (possibly for a very long time)

What? Nothing in the Treaty is permanent unless the members states want it to be. The Treaty can be amended at any time provided the support is there for it.

jmayo · 12-06-2008 3:31pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

This is not a vote on the WTO deal.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes you are right it is not a vote on World Trade Talks, it is a vote on how the EU is to be managed in the future.
If our government cannot be relied upon to fight for an industry that contributes employment and sizable exports to the Irish economy, then can they be relied upon to have negotiated a fair deal for Ireland and can they be relied upon to fight for our interests in the years ahead.
I know you will now state this is not a vote on the government or the political parties, but they are the ones telling us and indeed subtley threatening us to vote for this treaty.

I am not happy with the way the EU has been developing.
I do not want Turkey or fomer Yugoslav republics accused of war crimes to be considered for membership, I feel that the latest entrants should be given time to bed in, I do not agree with pushing treaties on voters until they give the desired result, ignoring the populations of countries that
have rejected the constitution (of which this treaty is effectively a rehash), the long term aim of some major EU players to create a federal Europe (one external voice through president/foreign minister and one eventual military machine).
I believe the Laval ruling is the thin end of the wedge.
After the EU spending years and millions on administration creating a structure that is supposed to have guaranteed food security, it is now about to sell it out over night in WTO.
Thus this is my protest.

The pro side of course will counter this should not be a protest vote on EU but I should look just at the treaty itself.
But how then do I show the EU institutions and players that I am not happy with the direction the EU has been taking, sign a petition that has no real standing or perhaps talk to one of the parliament's over expensed MEPs ?
Of course I will also be labelled a xenophobe, a nationalist, a ludeite, narrowminded, a provo fellow traveller, an oppressor of thrid world people and farmers, a would be CIA facilitator, whatever.
Maybe I am just concerned and think it is time the beurocrats stopped their ego trips.

turgon · 12-06-2008 3:40pm

jmayo wrote: »

Of course I will also be labelled a xenophobe, a nationalist, a ludeite, narrowminded, a provo fellow traveller, an oppressor of thrid world people and farmers, a would be CIA facilitator, whatever.

No - you will be a labeled a Euroskeptic. If you don't follow the EU's line on the Treaty you are called a Euroskeptic. If you don't like a part of the EU, your a Eurposkeptic.

You see, it is convenient for the Yes side to fence all No siders into a big group of "Euroskeptics" and then just ramble on about how good the EU is. When in fact, people just want the EU to stay the way it is and have some genuine concerns about the treaty.

VoidStarNull · 12-06-2008 3:42pm

jmayo wrote: »

Maybe I am just concerned and think it is time the beurocrats stopped their ego trips.

I'm curious, why do the poor bureaucrats in Brussels always get it in the neck? Their job is just to help the national governments draw up and implement European policies. They don't have the power to decide legislation, or to make decisions on international agreements between the member states.

When we transfer soveignty to Brussels, we are not giving it to bureaucrats. We are saying that instead of deciding certain issues (like climate change policy) at national level, we will decide them at EU level by agreement among the elected governments.

oscarBravo · 12-06-2008 3:50pm

turgon wrote: »

You see, it is convenient for the Yes side to fence all No siders into a big group...

*ahem*

molloyjh · 12-06-2008 3:57pm

turgon wrote: »

No - you will be a labeled a Euroskeptic. If you don't follow the EU's line on the Treaty you are called a Euroskeptic. If you don't like a part of the EU, your a Eurposkeptic.

You see, it is convenient for the Yes side to fence all No siders into a big group of "Euroskeptics" and then just ramble on about how good the EU is. When in fact, people just want the EU to stay the way it is and have some genuine concerns about the treaty.

That reminds me of the line in the last Star Wars movie from Obi-Wan: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes".
ALL of the Yes side? Does that not constitute this "fencing" you are complaining about? And when you say "people" does that mean you are speaking for everyone? Does everybody "want the EU to stay the way it is"? Even me?:eek:

Call Me Jimmy · 12-06-2008 4:00pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

*ahem*

heh, countless times I've seen this from both sides, it is pretty funny!

12-06-2008 4:01pm

jmayo wrote: »

If our government cannot be relied upon to fight for an industry that contributes employment and sizable exports to the Irish economy, then can they be relied upon to have negotiated a fair deal for Ireland and can they be relied upon to fight for our interests in the years ahead.
I know you will now state this is not a vote on the government or the political parties, but they are the ones telling us and indeed subtley threatening us to vote for this treaty.

Firstly this government has promised the IFA that it will veto the mandelson wto proposals as they are bad for this country.I actually have a letter to that effect in front of me here and a recommendation from them to vote yes.

As regards the bona fide's of the parties on the yes side,you have got to be having a laugh.The biggest party on the no side in Sinn Féin and then theres the unelected libertas,the lady from the GP that almost lost her deposit in Dublin central last time out etc etc.

I rest my case as to whose bona fidé's are stronger to be frank.

sink · 12-06-2008 4:02pm

turgon wrote: »

You see, it is convenient for the Yes side to fence all No siders into a big group

Is that not the definition of irony?

Why are YOU voting no ?

Comments