Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

Previous poster some good points there but I'm not sure if the Al Qaeda reports can be backed up. And in any case that probably comes under how safe our borders are rather than the issue of neutrality.

I think the question what was raised in the article on another page was are we "free riding" on our Neutrality? again will quote from article.

"guaranteeing security is an eternal interest for all states. And here Ireland’s record is unique. When Nato was established in the aftermath of the second World War, Ireland remained neutral.

But unlike those other European countries who voluntarily chose that stance – Sweden and Switzerland – Ireland made no effort to guarantee its neutrality. Where the Swedes and the Swiss committed resources to their militaries, Ireland left itself undefended because it knew that its allies would protect it.

This is called free riding. No Irish person should be proud of it. But rather than being clear about this, self-deception took hold.

Non-participation in the Atlantic alliance came to be portrayed as noble aloofness from the conduct of the cold war. Implicit, if not explicit, in this position was that alliances among states for the purpose of enhancing security were in some way morally suspect."

So the question is what does Nuetrality mean to us. Are we prepared to remain Nuetral in other people's conflict yet expect others to come to our aid in the "event" that someone invades us for "strategical" or "unstrategical" purposes.

K-9

bayviewclose wrote: »

So the question is what does Nuetrality mean to us. Are we prepared to remain Nuetral in other people's conflict yet expect others to come to our aid in the "event" that someone invades us for "strategical" or "unstrategical" purposes.

I think we are. We could follow Sweden and Switzerlands example but I don't think the policy or financial implications would be appreciated.

K-9 wrote: »

I think we are. We could follow Sweden and Switzerlands example but I don't think the policy or financial implications would be appreciated.

Yes to be fair, We donate more to third world projects per head than most counties and maybe people would object if it was diverted away for military purposes.

Grandso wrote: »

I'm voting YES as overall I think the pros outweigh the cons.
Interesting that this website poll has the NO in front.

24 second movie on the Irish State:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pUuR6Jitkk

why is it interesting?

Grandso wrote: »

I suppose because I was expecting it to be the other way around.
I'm pretty sure it will go through this time.
So I think that it shows an anti-Lisbon lean among the "tech or net" saavy people in Ireland.

24 second movie on the Irish State:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pUuR6Jitkk

While I never regarded a yes as in the bag, I did suspect the online polls reflected the younger demographics of the web, and the greater levels of euroscepticism/criticism among this group. However, now I am beginning to suspect there is more to this than meets the eye, given Matt Cooper referring to private polls causing unease among the pro-Lisbon parties:From today's Sunday Times:

Matt Cooper wrote:

The opinion polls to date have some comfort for the Yes side but in recent weeks I detect growing fear among the treaty’s proponents based on some limited private polling and focus groups.

I think recent discussion on the airwaves as to the possible role of the single Euro interest rate on our economy may be feeding into a sense that more European integration might not be the solution to our economic woes after all. I also think that the elephant in the room is playing a part too. Fingers crossed. A second no vote would almost certainly mean the end for Cowen's leadership of the FF party. It would confirm he has become an anti-Midas figure in the party, making a hames of anything he touches.

Grandso wrote: »

I suppose because I was expecting it to be the other way around.
I'm pretty sure it will go through this time.
So I think that it shows an anti-Lisbon lean among the "tech or net" saavy people in Ireland.

24 second movie on the Irish State:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pUuR6Jitkk

So you dont think this poll is representative of general feeling then?

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

While I never regarded a yes as in the bag, I did suspect the online polls reflected the younger demographics of the web, and the greater levels of euroscepticism/criticism among this group. However, now I am beginning to suspect there is more to this than meets the eye, given Matt Cooper referring to private polls causing unease among the pro-Lisbon parties:From today's Sunday Times:
I think recent discussion on the airwaves as to the possible role of the single Euro interest rate on our economy may be feeding into a sense that more European integration might not be the solution to our economic woes after all. I also think that the elephant in the room is playing a part too. Fingers crossed. A second no vote would almost certainly mean the end for Cowen's leadership of the FF party. It would confirm he has become an anti-Midas figure in the party, making a hames of anything he touches.

FT, it’s an interesting article from Matt Cooper and certainly provides food for thought for those running the official Yes campaigns.

On the economy Cooper does say that “A second rejection of the treaty could have devastating repercussions for our economy as the EU’s tolerance and support for our predicament would likely evaporate”, however he doesn’t mention the possible effects of a No vote on the multinational sector (creates >80% of all exports) which I think has more serious long term consequences for the economy; one only has to look at what Intel, Microsoft and Pfizer have said recently in relation to Lisbon to see how worried they are.

Martin 2 wrote: »

FT, it’s an interesting article from Matt Cooper and certainly provides food for thought for those running the official Yes campaigns.

On the economy Cooper does say that “A second rejection of the treaty could have devastating repercussions for our economy as the EU’s tolerance and support for our predicament would likely evaporate”, however he doesn’t mention the possible effects of a No vote on the multinational sector (creates >80% of all exports) which I think has more serious long term consequences for the economy; one only has to look at what Intel, Microsoft and Pfizer have said recently in relation to Lisbon to see how worried they are.

What Intel/Microsoft etc. have said pertains to EU membership - something not in question in this referendum - despite the scaremongering of the govt and the "yes" parties. A no vote is a vote for the status-quo. That is the legal position, and whatever the ranting of the elites about a "two-speed Europe", that remains the position. If other countries want to use the Enhanced Cooperation provisions of the other treaties, then that's fine by me provided it doesn't interfere with our taxation system. We shouldn't vote yes just to be in with the crowd. Remember what your mother told you about being in with a bad crowd.

tlev

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

What Intel/Microsoft etc. have said pertains to EU membership - something not in question in this referendum - despite the scaremongering of the govt and the "yes" parties. A no vote is a vote for the status-quo. That is the legal position, and whatever the ranting of the elites about a "two-speed Europe", that remains the position. If other countries want to use the Enhanced Cooperation provisions of the other treaties, then that's fine by me provided it doesn't interfere with our taxation system. We shouldn't vote yes just to be in with the crowd. Remember what your mother told you about being in with a bad crowd.

Okay so we should be the loner that no one likes? At this precarious time Ireland needs all the friends that they can get. And while EU membership isn't in question with this referendum the EU can indirectly do some unpleasant things to Ireland with regards to lending. And eventually they could just say countries must ratify this treaty the same way they implemented things in the EMU. And taxation isn't even an issue right now with Lisbon but you know that.

tlev wrote: »

Okay so we should be the loner that no one likes? At this precarious time Ireland needs all the friends that they can get. And while EU membership isn't in question with this referendum the EU can indirectly do some unpleasant things to Ireland with regards to lending. And eventually they could just say countries must ratify this treaty the same way they implemented things in the EMU. And taxation isn't even an issue right now with Lisbon but you know that.

The won't do anything to us like they didn't to Denmark or France/Holland following their respective no votes on the Euro and the EU Constitution, respectively. One reason for this is that many of them know it would be rejected in their own countries too. I suspect some of them share the moral questions of whether or not ratification of a treaty with almost identical provisions to the rejected EU Constitution should have been proceeded with - a fact attested to by PM Topolanek's speech to the European Parliament some months ago claiming the Czechs would have rejected Lisbon in a referendum.

As for the "loner" comment, we are not alone. It's the elites who are alone in pushing this Treaty. Were that not the case, we would not be the only country having a referendum on this crucial issue. I think the Irish/French/Dutch no votes indicate that European integration is reaching the limits of what the peoples of Europe are prepared to accept. That's certainly the case for me, though personally I am in favour of democratic reform in Europe that does not compromise national sovereignty e.g. each country electing their Commissioner/only MEPs should be allowed become a Commissioner.

empirix

NO because we voted NO and were ignored,this is not very democratic of Europe - in my opinion and dont get me startedon that arrogant Sarkozy bloke (and i voted Yes the last time)

Martin 2 wrote: »

FT, it’s an interesting article from Matt Cooper and certainly provides food for thought for those running the official Yes campaigns.

On the economy Cooper does say that “A second rejection of the treaty could have devastating repercussions for our economy as the EU’s tolerance and support for our predicament would likely evaporate”, however he doesn’t mention the possible effects of a No vote on the multinational sector (creates >80% of all exports) which I think has more serious long term consequences for the economy; one only has to look at what Intel, Microsoft and Pfizer have said recently in relation to Lisbon to see how worried they are.

Is the EU really going to take the hardline with a country that opened its borders to ten of its accession states and provided employed to EU citizens. Remember we are a small enough nation but still provide more towards poverty per head then most countries. Getting really tired of this one sided argument all the time thats paints us as some unruly gang of mutineers.
And need i remind you what happened with a high profile company who outsourced their operations to another country.
Multi nationals have been good for us but its not the rejection of the treaty that will make them think twice about coming here.
Clearly they are worried about overall production costs that is making them think twice of moving to a country where they can do it cheaper. Not saying it is right and i think we should have a proper wage rate but at the end of the day, the market forces that operate them to remain here.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

What Intel/Microsoft etc. have said pertains to EU membership - something not in question in this referendum - despite the scaremongering of the govt and the "yes" parties. A no vote is a vote for the status-quo. That is the legal position, and whatever the ranting of the elites about a "two-speed Europe", that remains the position. If other countries want to use the Enhanced Cooperation provisions of the other treaties, then that's fine by me provided it doesn't interfere with our taxation system. We shouldn't vote yes just to be in with the crowd. Remember what your mother told you about being in with a bad crowd.

What Intel and Microsoft have said actually pertains both to EU membership and the Lisbon Treaty; here are the words of their senior Irish executives:

“The ‘no’ result in the last Lisbon referendum has had a massive negative impact on this country. One of the things that multinationals look for when investing anywhere is stability and certainty.
“When multinationals start asking questions such as ‘why is Ireland voting no to Europe at a time when our whole strategy and reason for being here is because Ireland is a part of Europe?’ we should take note. Ireland has always punched above its weight in Europe, so why is it putting itself in a situation where it is cutting itself adrift from Europe? Luckily, we have one more chance to get it right.” Jim O’Hara, General Manager Intel Ireland.

"Continued foreign direct investment could be impacted if Ireland’s non-ratification of the Lisbon Treaty results in us standing alone in Europe.
It has to be accepted that our influence has been weakened as a result of a “no” vote. We need to consider how this can be rectified as the outcome will be detrimental to our continued growth and prosperity.” - Mr. Paul Rellis, Managing Director of Microsoft Ireland

You say “A no vote is a vote for the status-quo”, however in a changing world a vote for the status-quo is not necessarily the best option.
If the economy doesn’t concern you then here are 10 reasons to vote yes based on the treaty (courtesy of Sink): http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055633086

"Remember what your mother told you about being in with a bad crowd" well some of the political parties representing the No crowd are no angels either: Sinn Fein, UK independence party (UKIP), France's Front National, Belgium's Vlaams Belang, Austria's Freedom Party, the last 3 being extreme right wing parties.

ei.sdraob

if these 2 companies feel uneasy about Ireland then were ought to listen

Martin 2 wrote: »

the No crowd are no angels either: Sinn Fein, UK independence party (UKIP), France's Front National, Belgium's Vlaams Belang, Austria's Freedom Party, the last 3 being extreme right wing parties.

I taught Libertas are still in it (minus Ganley)?

also note how majority of these are non Irish ...

tlev

bayviewclose wrote: »

Getting really tired of this one sided argument all the time thats paints us as some unruly gang of mutineers.

I'm sorry but I disagree with you, what are we then? Ireland is being seriously ungrateful towards everything that the EU has given them. The same way you are annoyed at this I am annoyed at the 'EU can shove it' attitude that a lot of people have, I'm not acusing anyone here in particular just the attitude of the nation in general. The we don't need anyone but ourselves 'spiel'.

Give us roundabouts and EU monies but don't take our sovereignity :rolleyes:
Why does Ireland think they are entitled to everything without giving something in return.
The only thing that makes Ireland attractive right now is the fact that they are a) Part of the EU so the ECB will back them up b) the low tax rates. Heaven forbid that they lose that and actually had to compete on the basis of having a highly educated workforce with competitive wage structures and good infrastructure.

tlev wrote: »

I'm sorry but I disagree with you, what are we then? Ireland is being seriously ungrateful towards everything that the EU has given them. The same way you are annoyed at this I am annoyed at the 'EU can shove it' attitude that a lot of people have, I'm not acusing anyone here in particular just the attitude of the nation in general. The we don't need anyone but ourselves 'spiel'.

Give us roundabouts and EU monies but don't take our sovereignity :rolleyes:
Why does Ireland think they are entitled to everything without giving something in return.
The only thing that makes Ireland attractive right now is the fact that they are a) Part of the EU so the ECB will back them up b) the low tax rates. Heaven forbid that they lose that and actually had to compete on the basis of having a highly educated workforce with competitive wage structures and good infrastructure.

Did you read my last post. What we contribute to the third world aid. Opening our doors to the accessionary states. Is that not giving something in return?

LiamMc

I'm still undecided

ei.sdraob wrote: »

if these 2 companies feel uneasy about Ireland then were ought to listen

I taught Libertas are still in it (minus Ganley)?

also note how majority of these are non Irish ...

Just to clarify, France's Front National, Belgium's Vlaams Belang, Austria's Freedom Party are opposed to the treaty on the continent but as far as I know they won't be campaigning here ( http://euobserver.com/883/27540). There have been rumours of the UKIP getting involved in the Irish campaign (in fact there has already been a lot of UKIP videos posted on one thread on this forum:)). As for Libertas, I don't know but I'm going to check.

tlev

bayviewclose wrote: »

Did you read my last post. What we contribute to the third world aid. Opening our doors to the accessionary states. Is that not giving something in return?

Not really in the grand scheme of things. The EU cares what is best for the EU not if we are helping African countries, that is our business. Granted it is great that we are doing it and helping a lot of families but the EU won't go hmmm here is a gold star for helping all those people, you don't need to ratify this silly old treaty, you already give so much.

RandomName2

tlev wrote: »

I'm sorry but I disagree with you, what are we then? Ireland is being seriously ungrateful towards everything that the EU has given them. The same way you are annoyed at this I am annoyed at the 'EU can shove it' attitude that a lot of people have, I'm not acusing anyone here in particular just the attitude of the nation in general. The we don't need anyone but ourselves 'spiel'.

Give us roundabouts and EU monies but don't take our sovereignity :rolleyes:
Why does Ireland think they are entitled to everything without giving something in return.
The only thing that makes Ireland attractive right now is the fact that they are a) Part of the EU so the ECB will back them up b) the low tax rates. Heaven forbid that they lose that and actually had to compete on the basis of having a highly educated workforce with competitive wage structures and good infrastructure.

Jaysus!

I'm sure the multi-national companies are moving to India and China because the Indians and Chinese are more appreciative of Brussels than the Irish.

The Americans weren't very appreciative of Westminster - oh I'm sure being out of the British Empire bankrupted them.

Anyway... Lisbon has nothing to do with the economy... unless you are talking about political stability... in which case looking at a military junta style of government would produce the most stable set-up for companies [oh... China... maybe they do have something to teach us...]

Low tax rate does not equal low wages! Having CGT of 17.5% instead of 21% is not going to be as important a factor as minimum wage being about 3 euros an hour per employee instead of about 11.

Martin 2 wrote: »

What Intel and Microsoft have said actually pertains both to EU membership and the Lisbon Treaty; here are the words of their senior Irish executives: You say “A no vote is a vote for the status-quo”, however in a changing world a vote for the status-quo is not necessarily the best option.
If the economy doesn’t concern you then here are 10 reasons to vote yes based on the treaty (courtesy of Sink): http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055633086

"Remember what your mother told you about being in with a bad crowd" well some of the political parties representing the No side are no angels either: Sinn Fein, UK independence party (UKIP), France's Front National, Belgium's Vlaams Belang, Austria's Freedom Party, the last 3 being extreme right wing parties.

They're not mentioning specific provisions of the Lisbon Treaty that are pertinant to FDI in this country - only questions about "cutting ourselves off from Europe". Fortunately, we will be in the same position as the rest of Europe if we vote no, as Lisbon will then not come into force in any of them. And I always wonder why it is that it's only Irish managers of these multinationals that come out actively in support of Lisbon. Why is that I wonder? Is EU patronage or the prospect thereof involved?

worldrepublic

Well, to be balanced, Ireland does made a lot of money through its image as "modernity's other", in terms of the film industry, or Tourism.

Also, Europe has always treated Ireland as an "asset" -so we don't really owe them, as such. They have their agenda, we have ours.

I think a lot of people are getting annoyed at the argument that we join OR ELSE! ...

There has to be some kind of ethical dimension to the argument?

Do people think it is right that Ireland fails to play a role in the fight against terror? We do need to make more of a contribution in the way of peace-keeping, intelligence, monitoring the activities of potential sympathisers etc, clamping down on non-conformists. The War on Terror is clearly getting bigger by the day and Ireland is in a strategic location from a military and intelligence point of view.

So it is not just about satisfying the needs of corporations....

we have to make some serious compromises on the more ethical debates. It was a disgrace the way all of those trouble makers down at shannon giving out about the planes refueling. Why should all Europeans play their part in bringing peace to the middle-east... and we stubbornly refuse to get involved??

So, voting yes will keep the corporations happy and help the worsening War on Terror. It looks like Britain will be in Afgan/Pakistan for at least the next 40 years (Sky News)... and Al qaeda is not backing down. At some point we and the various European countries will get caught up in what will be a very protracted war indeed. Radar facilities are being installed in the Czech Republic now. We should at least allow those kinds of facilities here. We would be richly rewarded... plus the arms business is BIG business.

worldrepublic wrote: »

Well, to be balanced, Ireland does made a lot of money through its image as "modernity's other", in terms of the film industry, or Tourism.

Also, Europe has always treated Ireland as an "asset" -so we don't really owe them, as such. They have their agenda, we have ours.

I think a lot of people are getting annoyed at the argument that we join OR ELSE! ...

There has to be some kind of ethical dimension to the argument?

Do people think it is right that Ireland fails to play a role in the fight against terror? We do need to make more of a contribution in the way of peace-keeping, intelligence, monitoring the activities of potential sympathisers etc, clamping down on non-conformists. The War on Terror is clearly getting bigger by the day and Ireland is in a strategic location from a military and intelligence point of view.

So it is not just about satisfying the needs of corporations....

we have to make some serious compromises on the more ethical debates. It was a disgrace the way all of those trouble makers down at shannon giving out about the planes refueling. Why should all Europeans play their part in bringing peace to the middle-east... and we stubbornly refuse to get involved??

So, voting yes will keep the corporations happy and help the worsening War on Terror. It looks like Britain will be in Afgan/Pakistan for at least the next 40 years (Sky News)... and Al qaeda is not backing down. At some point we and the various European countries will get caught up in what will be a very protracted war indeed. Radar facilities are being installed in the Czech Republic now. We should at least allow those kinds of facilities here. We would be richly rewarded... plus the arms business is BIG business.

Well i think i mentioned this before. Are we entitled to remain neutral on issues. Clearly we did not agree on Renditioning at Shannon and still it went on. So as such our neutrality was compromised. What is EU stance on renditioning?

worldrepublic

bayviewclose wrote: »

Well i think i mentioned this before. Are we entitled to remain neutral on issues. Clearly we did not agree on Renditioning at Shannon and still it went on. So as such our neutrality was compromised. What is EU stance on renditioning?

Various articles of the Lisbon Treaty / consolidated texts make explicit reference to the War on Terror or the fight against Terrorism and the terrorists. We will sign up to this and we will fight along side the other Euro-parties. Renditioning is just the start, the best attitude is not to ask these questions but to just fight Al Quaeda (they are everywhere now).

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

They're not mentioning specific provisions of the Lisbon Treaty that are pertinant to FDI in this country - only questions about "cutting ourselves off from Europe". Fortunately, we will be in the same position as the rest of Europe if we vote no, as Lisbon will then not come into force in any of them. And I always wonder why it is that it's only Irish managers of these multinationals that come out actively in support of Lisbon. Why is that I wonder? Is EU patronage or the prospect thereof involved?

I wouldn’t expect the multinational sector to publically endorse or discuss any particular provision of the treaty however they do support the overall concept and rationale as Paul Rellis, Managing Director of Microsoft Ireland and President of the American Chamber of Commerce Ireland has said: “I recognize the need to occasionally re-evaluate what we do and how we do it in the light of new circumstances; I can therefore readily identify with the rationale of the Lisbon Treaty to upgrade the processes of the EU to reflect the needs of a larger Union of 27 member states in a rapidly changing world".

“Fortunately, we will be in the same position as the rest of Europe if we vote no, as Lisbon will then not come into force in any of them”, unfortunately, we’ll be in a different position to the rest of Europe as the only country to reject the Lisbon treaty.

“EU patronage”, it’s possible, but I take the less cynical view that they support Lisbon mainly because it’s in the best interests of their companies and employees.

P. Breathnach

worldrepublic wrote: »

Various articles of the Lisbon Treaty / consolidated texts make explicit reference to the War on Terror or the fight against Terrorism and the terrorists. We will sign up to this and we will fight along side the other Euro-parties. Renditioning is just the start, the best attitude is not to ask these questions but to just fight Al Quaeda (they are everywhere now).

What articles refer to the War on Terror?

What articles mention Al Qaida or any Islamic faction?