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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

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

1…4546485051…127

Comments

  • #1412
    Spiritoftheseventies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,082 ✭✭✭✭Spiritoftheseventies


    taconnol wrote: »
    It is not possible for us to become entirely self-sufficient with our own resources. Fossil fuels are finite resources and will eventually run out so banking on them is quite pointless. Renewables work better when part of a larger grid as it results in greater load-levelling as there's only so much storage that can be created in a small energy market like Ireland (or the SEM).

    Also, we want to export our energy surplus to other countries when we have it - ie to our European neighbours.

    Opting out does not help us in terms of energy at all. And as a country with 89% dependency on imported fuel (SEI, 2007) I think it's in our best interests to improve indigenous resources BUT recognise their limitations and how they work best when deployed in tandem with close geographical neighbours.
    I see that but how much money is that gas off Corrib worth to our economy. If we had an Irish company drilling for it, how would it benefit us.


  • #1413
    jor el
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,713 ✭✭✭✭jor el


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    You're thinking of the Council of Ministers.

    Here's how the Commission works:

    http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/collegemeetings/index_en.htm

    Thanks, I think, still have no idea what the commission does, or why keeping our commissioner is a good thing.

    I don't care about Lisbon any more, there's too much bull arguments on both sides, and the truth is just lost to me. I voted no the last time, possibly in error, and I'll vote no this time, partly because I've seen nothing that convinces me to vote yes, but mainly in the hope that it might hasten the demise of our current government.


  • #1414
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    That is a cheap shot; Gisela Stuart is a German-born pro-European MP. I guess Lisbon supporters are all out of the heavy artillery of arguments though so are reduced to cheap shots. If that all you've got, that what's you throw, eh? The Yes-men here remind me of the apes at the beginning of "2001: A Space Odyssey" throwing bones at the spaceship.

    You were the one in this thread throwing cheap shot about earlier on so no need to be getting all precious now.

    Once upon a time she was Pro_EU perhaps. Maybe somebody did not get their way during the Constitution negotations and had a hissy fit? I am not going to produce any evidence support for this, but if you want proof I just keep on repeating it over and over again.


  • #1415
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    jor el wrote: »
    Thanks, I think, still have no idea what the commission does, or why keeping our commissioner is a good thing.

    I don't care about Lisbon any more, there's too much bull arguments on both sides, and the truth is just lost to me. I voted no the last time, possibly in error, and I'll vote no this time, partly because I've seen nothing that convinces me to vote yes, but mainly in the hope that it might hasten the demise of our current government.

    The Commission is an unelected body of politicians that has the monopoly on all proposals for new EU laws, or changes to existing EU laws. Given that this law is superiror to any other for 500 million people they are a very powerful institution indeed.

    You can tell they have a lot of power, because the former Portuguese Prime Minsister (jose Barosso) resigned from the most powerful elected position in this country to take up the unelected role of Commission president, and competed against the prime ministers of Belgium and Luxemboug who also wanted to resign from elected politics to head the EU Commision. Whenever you see elected politicians resigning from office to take up more powerful unelected positions you can tell that something is wrong with the political process.

    The Lisbon Treaty creates yet more powerful unelected positions like the EU Council president and EU foreign minster, such that we may (should Lisbon be ratified) shortly witness a repeat of this unholy spectacle of elected politicians fighting with one another to resign their elected positions to take up the more powerful unelected posts in Brussels that Lisbon creates. You can see why politicians like the opportunities Lisbon gives them to exercise power beyond the reach of any voter, but voters have an interest in kkeping these politicians on the democratic leash by rejecting Lisbon on October 2.


  • #1416
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    jor el wrote: »
    Thanks, I think, still have no idea what the commission does, or why keeping our commissioner is a good thing.

    The commission is the part of the EU that proposes legislation, so they make up the wording of the EU laws. They don't have the power to actually pass those laws though, the laws that they propose can only be passed by a combination of the European Council (made up of our governments), and the European Parliament (made up of our MEP's, that you voted for in the European elections).

    Commissioners swear an oath to be impartial, so aren't allowed to act in favour of the country they are from, this is one of the reasons we don't vote for them, as they aren't allowed to act in just our favour, but have to act in everyone's favour.

    I personally don't think it was good thing that we kept 'our' commissioner (they represent the EU as a whole so they're not really 'ours' anyway), but some people felt it was important. It's not a bad thing to keep the commissioner, except that it probably means paying more politicians than we really need to!

    jor el wrote: »
    I don't care about Lisbon any more, there's too much bull arguments on both sides, and the truth is just lost to me. I voted no the last time, possibly in error, and I'll vote no this time, partly because I've seen nothing that convinces me to vote yes, but mainly in the hope that it might hasten the demise of our current government.

    If you have a look at a couple of the links in my signature you can see some reasons for voting yes (if you agree they are good things that is!).

    Feel free to ask any questions on this forum, I've learned a lot since I started posting here.

    :)

    Remember, the Government have already survived a massive beating at the European and Local elections, have survived a Motion of No Confidence in the Dáil and appear all round to not listen to the people telling them to get out, so they will probably think that if you say 'No' to Lisbon, you are saying 'No' to Lisbon, not to Brian Cowen, and in a way, they'd be right.

    There's no point in cutting off our noses to spite our fat biffo face ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #1417
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,855 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    jor el wrote: »
    ...I'll vote no this time, partly because I've seen nothing that convinces me to vote yes...
    What have you seen that convinces you to vote no?
    ...but mainly in the hope that it might hasten the demise of our current government.
    If you want to get rid of our current government, vote against them in the next election. If you want to get rid of them sooner, lobby Green and independent TDs to withdraw their support from the coalition.

    But please - if you don't know what this issue is about, either find out or abstain. If you don't know what the implications of the treaty are, how can you know the implications of rejecting it?


  • #1418
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,855 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    The Lisbon Treaty creates yet more powerful unelected positions like the EU Council president and EU foreign minster, such that we may (should Lisbon be ratified) shortly witness a repeat of this unholy spectacle of elected politicians fighting with one another to resign their elected positions to take up the more powerful unelected posts in Brussels that Lisbon creates. You can see why politicians like the opportunities Lisbon gives them to exercise power beyond the reach of any voter, but voters have an interest in kkeping these politicians on the democratic leash by rejecting Lisbon on October 2.
    Yeah, we get it - you don't like the EU, you'll be voting no.

    By the way, how has the art auction industry fared in the UK since 2001? Sotheby's out of business yet?

    Have you thought of any EU policies arrived at by QMV that an EU member state population is forced to unhappily abide by?


  • #1419
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If you want to get rid of our current government, vote against them in the next election. If you want to get rid of them sooner, lobby Green and independent TDs to withdraw their support from the coalition.

    If you want to see them jump ship to Brussels before you get a chance to vote them out, then vote Yes to Lisbon and the undemocratic Brussels power positions that it creates. That will be their reward for persuading you to vote yes and once safely ensconced in Brussels your vote will be powerless to touch them.


  • #1420
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,855 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    If you want to see them jump ship to Brussels before you get a chance to vote them out, then vote Yes to Lisbon and the undemocratic Brussels power positions that it creates. That will be their reward for persuading you to vote yes and once safely ensconced in Brussels your vote will be powerless to touch them.
    Yes, we get it, you don't like the EU.

    How's the art auction business holding up in the UK since 2001?


  • #1421
    jor el
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,713 ✭✭✭✭jor el


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    Commissioners swear an oath to be impartial, so aren't allowed to act in favour of the country they are from, this is one of the reasons we don't vote for them, as they aren't allowed to act in just our favour, but have to act in everyone's favour.

    So, keeping "our" commissioner is basically moot anyway, since they're all independent anyway? If the referendum commission, or the government, had just explained this like you just did, I think there'd be a lot less hoop-la about keeping/loosing a commissioner.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    What have you seen that convinces you to vote no?

    Pretty much nothing. Voting no keeps everything as it is right now, and I don't see any reason to change.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    But please - if you don't know what this issue is about, either find out or abstain. If you don't know what the implications of the treaty are, how can you know the implications of rejecting it?

    We rejected it once already, and I don't see any effect.


  • Advertisement
  • #1422
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    jor el wrote: »
    So, keeping "our" commissioner is basically moot anyway, since they're all independent anyway? If the referendum commission, or the government, had just explained this like you just did, I think there'd be a lot less hoop-la about keeping/loosing a commissioner.
    .

    1. yes moot

    2. they did

    3. no one listened as its easier to fall for Libertas lies than use the gray matter between the ears


  • #1423
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    jor el wrote: »
    So, keeping "our" commissioner is basically moot anyway, since they're all independent anyway? If the referendum commission, or the government, had just explained this like you just did, I think there'd be a lot less hoop-la about keeping/loosing a commissioner.



    Pretty much nothing. Voting no keeps everything as it is right now, and I don't see any reason to change.



    We rejected it once already, and I don't see any effect.

    Think the Govt. concentrated on the fact that everybody was losing a Commissioner in the same way.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #1424
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,855 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    jor el wrote: »
    So, keeping "our" commissioner is basically moot anyway, since they're all independent anyway? If the referendum commission, or the government, had just explained this like you just did, I think there'd be a lot less hoop-la about keeping/loosing a commissioner.
    They did. Libertas put up posters saying "keep our commissioner". People bought the soundbites.
    Pretty much nothing. Voting no keeps everything as it is right now, and I don't see any reason to change.
    The flaw in that argument is the assumption that (a) everything is just peachy right now, and (b) if Lisbon is rejected, the rest of the member states will cheerfully abandon their plans for reform of the EU institutions, just because we're unhappy with our government.
    We rejected it once already, and I don't see any effect.
    With respect, that doesn't mean there wasn't any.


  • #1425
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    jor el wrote: »
    Thanks, I think, still have no idea what the commission does, or why keeping our commissioner is a good thing.

    I don't care about Lisbon any more, there's too much bull arguments on both sides, and the truth is just lost to me. I voted no the last time, possibly in error, and I'll vote no this time, partly because I've seen nothing that convinces me to vote yes, but mainly in the hope that it might hasten the demise of our current government.

    The EU may interpret a No vote as more to do with our Govt. than Lisbon itself and in fairness, it seems to be a popular reason now.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #1426
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If you don't know what the implications of the treaty are, how can you know the implications of rejecting it?

    The implications of the Lisbon treaty are that it will federalize and centralize more power in Brussels, lead to a never-ending stream of Brussels law on issues where your vote used to make a difference, all of which will be superior to national law and which will accumulate over the decades to come and slowly neutralizing the Oireachtas which is not allowed to legislate in any way that conflicts with Brussels law.


  • #1427
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    jor el wrote: »
    So, keeping "our" commissioner is basically moot anyway, since they're all independent anyway? If the referendum commission, or the government, had just explained this like you just did, I think there'd be a lot less hoop-la about keeping/loosing a commissioner.

    Pretty much nothing. Voting no keeps everything as it is right now, and I don't see any reason to change.

    We rejected it once already, and I don't see any effect.

    Yeah it's a pity there was so much spin and smoke floating round the first time, it kind of obscured what Lisbon (and indeed the EU!) was actually all about. But that's what happens when various people really want a certain outcome (like stopping Lisbon, not because they disagree with it, but because they disagree with the existence of the EU), and they don't care how they go about getting it.

    Have a look at the 10 reasons to vote 'yes' link in my signature, they're pretty digestible, and maybe you'll find something you like there.

    If you're in the mood for a longer, but funnier, read, have a look at the 'spoofers guide' link!

    Ultimately Lisbon is pretty boring, there's nothing s*xy in there about giving Ireland anything in particular, but what it should do is streamline the running of the EU, which is struggling a bit with institutions and processes set up for 15 member states, when it is now close to 30.

    There's some things I personally really like in there, like making Energy policy a competence of the EU, which should hopefully allow us to get cheaper electricity and petrol into Ireland, as we can make deals as part of a customer base of half a billion, instead of a few million.

    I also like that the EU will gain a single voice to speak to the world on foreign policy areas which we agree on. I think this will help us deal peacefully with countries like Iran, and hopefully avoid another Iraq.

    Ultimately it's up to you how to vote, of course, but since we've been handed this responsibility, I think we all should put a little thought into our votes. Things probably aren't going to stay how they are. If we reject Lisbon, in 5 or 10 years time there'll be a new treaty, because they need to do something to get the EU running better, and maybe the things in Lisbon which you might actually like won't be in it.

    Something to think about anyway...


  • #1428
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,855 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    The implications of the Lisbon treaty are that it will federalize and centralize more power in Brussels, lead to a never-ending stream of Brussels law on issues where your vote used to make a difference, all of which will be superior to national law and which will accumulate over the decades to come and slowly neutralizing the Oireachtas which is not allowed to legislate in any way that conflicts with Brussels law.
    Yeah, we get it, you don't like the EU.

    How's the UK art auction business doing since 2001, by the way?


  • #1429
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    The implications of the Lisbon treaty are that it will federalize and centralize more power in Brussels, lead to a never-ending stream of Brussels law on issues where your vote used to make a difference, all of which will be superior to national law and which will accumulate over the decades to come and slowly neutralizing the Oireachtas which is not allowed to legislate in any way that conflicts with Brussels law.

    We can say No the next Treaty.

    Anyway:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #1430
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    Ultimately Lisbon is pretty boring, there's nothing s*xy in there about giving Ireland anything in particular, but what it should do is streamline the running of the EU, which is struggling a bit with institutions and processes set up for 15 member states, when it is now close to 30.

    As the EU has taken on new members the voting weight of existing members has been watered down to free up voting weight for new members. So we see that it is already very difficult under the existing rules in an EU27 to block legislation contrary to the national interest. A real reform treaty would compensate for the watering down effect of an expanded membership by REDUCING the blocking threshold to protect each nation's ability to block measures that its voters oppose. Lisbon does the exact opposite in INCREASING the blocking to 35% making it much more difficult for Ireland (with a watered down 1 to 2% of the votes depending on the EU institution) to avoid being overruled and forced to permanently accept measures that the irish people never wanted in the first place.

    So Lisbon is reform of the wrong type which is really designed to lead to a rapid centralisation of power in Brussels where it would be exercised by politicians that your vote cannot touch.


  • #1431
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,855 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    ...legislation contrary to the national interest.
    Such as?

    If you keep refusing to answer questions people might start to think you don't have any answers.


  • Advertisement
  • #1432
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    K-9 wrote: »
    We can say No the next Treaty.

    No new treaty is necessary for the centralization i described. Only time.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055637286


  • #1433
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    As the EU has taken on new members the voting weight of existing members has been watered down to free up voting weight for new members. So we see that it is already very difficult under the existing rules in an EU27 to block legislation contrary to the national interest. A real reform treaty would compensate for the watering down effect of an expanded membership by REDUCING the blocking threshold to protect each nation's ability to block measures that its voters oppose. Lisbon does the exact opposite in INCREASING the blocking to 35% making it much more difficult for Ireland (with a watered down 1 to 2% of the votes depending on the EU institution) to avoid being overruled and forced to permanently accept measures that the irish people never wanted in the first place.

    So Lisbon is reform of the wrong type which is really designed to lead to a rapid centralisation of power in Brussels where it would be exercised by politicians that your vote cannot touch.

    I guess it all depends on whether your worldview is centred on what you can block, or what you can achieve...


  • #1434
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    No new treaty is necessary for the centralization i described. Only time.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055637286

    And a Eurosceptic mind.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #1435
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    I guess it all depends on whether your worldview is centred on what you can block, or what you can achieve...

    You can have it both ways if your idea of achievement is to block things.


  • #1436
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    I guess it all depends on whether your worldview is centred on what you can block, or what you can achieve...

    What can you achieve by the presence on the statute book of EU law that you voted against but could not block, and the supremacy of which (together with the need for Commission proposal) means it cannot be changed again at any point in the future by the people you elect?


  • #1437
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    What can you achieve by the presence on the statute book of EU law that you voted against but could not block, and the supremacy of which (together with the need for Commission proposal) means it cannot be changed again at any point in the future by the people you elect?

    You haven't shown any EU Law that we opposed that is on the statute books.

    You have a fear of what might happen, which is fair enough, though some might say irrational, even slightly xenophobic.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #1438
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    K-9 wrote: »
    You haven't shown any EU Law that we opposed that is on the statute books.

    Yes i have, and not just me. But even if all governments vote unanimously for EU law (such as the 1992 decision to create a minimum rate of VAT in the EU) the same argument applies. Two French presidents have been prevented from reducing VAT on restaurant bills by that 1992 decision to set a minimum rate of VAT in the EU. Gordon Brown has also been prevented from reducing VAT on green products.

    And why was the EU minimum rate of VAT created? Because the German chancellor of the time could not get a VAT rise through the Bundesrat (second chamber of the German parliament) so proposed the legislation at EU level instead. And 17 years later it is still in force preventing french and british leaders from implementing their election promises. This shows the undemocratic nature of all EU law, including that agreed to unanimously.

    There is a mentality that if all EU governemnts agree once on something they should be able to create an EU law on it. But that law does not just apply to those governments but stays around for ever being binding on the state in perpetuity (i.e. on future governments and generations of voters) by virtue of its supremacy over national law preventing any nation in Europe from electing a new government able to change its mind.

    We therefore need as little EU law as possible, but the 'more Europe' mentality in brussels is to create as much as possible with devastating effects for our long term ability to change the law we live under through the ballot box.


  • #1439
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    Yes i have, and not just me. But even if all governments vote unanimously for EU law (such as the 1992 decision to create a minimum rate of VAT in the EU) the same argument applies. Two French presidents have been prevented from reducing VAT on restaurant bills by that 1992 decision to set a minimum rate of VAT in the EU. Gordon Brown has also been prevented from reducing VAT on green products.

    And why was the EU minimum rate of VAT created? Because the German chancellor of the time could not get a VAT rise through the Bundesrat (second chamber of the German parliament) so proposed the legislation at EU level instead. And 17 years later it is still in force preventing french and british leaders from implementing their election promises. This shows the undemocratic nature of all EU law, including that agreed to unanimously.

    There is a mentality that if all EU governemnts agree once on something they should be able to create an EU law on it. But that law does not just apply to those governments but stays around for ever being inding on the state in perpeuity and by virtue of its supremacy over national law preventing any nation in Europe from electing a new government able to change its mind.

    We therefore need as little EU law as possible, but the 'more Europe' mentality in brussels is to create as much as possible with devesating effects for our long term ability to change the law we live under through the ballot box.

    Yet we have a zero rate VAT, the UK has as well, together with a 5% rate I think and they reduced their VAT rate, albeit temporarily.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #1440
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    Yes i have, and not just me.

    Not a great example tbh.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • #1441
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    K-9 wrote: »
    Yet we have a zero rate VAT, the UK has as well, together with a 5% rate I think and they reduced their VAT rate, albeit temporarily.

    The EU minimum rate of VAT is 15% and the maximum 25% with a few exceptions allowed on specific products. This is an inappropriate area for the EU to legislate in that has frustrated governments from setting the rate of VAT that they wish, and which they ran for office on.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Value_Added_Tax


Advertisement