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…5556586061…127

Comments

  • #1712
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    Please get your story straight.

    His point has eluded you, perhaps...he's saying your list of "things that show the EU lacks legitimacy" is based on your view that nothing can give the EU legitimacy. If something that you think shows the lack of the EU's legitimacy - like the "drastic fall" in European election turnouts - turns out to be the opposite of what you thought, you don't thereby agree that the EU has legitimacy. You simply move on to finding something else to "prove" the EU's "lack of legitimacy".

    amused,
    Scofflaw


  • #1713
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,855 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    At least i have a coherent explanation for why there is an EU legitimacy crisis.
    You can't claim to have a coherent explanation for something you've failed to demonstrate even exists. You've repeatedly claimed that there is such a crisis; you seem to be under the illusion that if you tell the rest of us this as often as you have obviously told yourself, it will become as true in our heads as it obviously is in yours. Sadly for you, the rest of us need pesky facts and arguments to be convinced of something; not just bland repetition of the same mantras over and over and over and over and over and over again.
    There is nothing xenophobic about representative government. I believe all the other peoples of the Earth deserve it as much as i do where as you would deny it to all.
    Face it - your core belief is that foreigners should mind their own business, and stay out of yours. You can claim there's nothing xenophobic about that, if it makes you feel better.


  • #1714
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,855 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    His point has eluded you, perhaps...
    Of course my point has eluded him. For him to hold on to his nation-state-centric worldview, I can't possibly have a point.


  • #1715
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You can't claim to have a coherent explanation for something you've failed to demonstrate even exists.

    So what is your explanation for all the failed EU referendums in the last decade or so?

    You do not have an argument, let alone one that fits the facts. All you have is a denial of the facts! Plus an insistence on keeping on plugging away with the same tired old 'integration by stealth' agenda (which is what Lisbon is) that led to the current problem.


  • #1716
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,855 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    So what is your explanation for all the failed EU referendums in the last decade or so?
    What is your explanation for all the successful referenda in the last decade or so?
    You do not have an argument, let alone one that fits the facts.
    Dude, you don't even have facts.


  • Advertisement
  • #1717
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    So what is your explanation for all the failed EU referendums in the last decade or so?

    All four of them? What about the three that passed, plus the 9 accession referendums that passed? How does your "crisis of EU legitimacy" explain those?

    My personal explanation of them is that democracy involves negotiation with the voters, and that referendums sometimes involve issues that have nothing to do with the question being asked. I voted No at Nice 1 for reasons that had nothing to do with the EU.

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • #1718
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Dude, you don't even have facts.

    Is that really the best that you can do? I asked for an explanation from you for the established facts, and that is all you can say?

    I presume you are not denying the long sequence of lost EU referendums over the last decade? e.g.
    - In Denmark (2000) and Sweden (2003) on the Euro
    - In France and the Netherlands (2005) on the EU Constitution
    - In Ireland (2008) on the Lisbon treaty.
    - In Norway and Switzerland on EU entry (only poor countries vote for EU membership)

    Here we have 7 referendums in different countries on giving the EU more powers over these nations and all said NO, typically against the recommendation of government and media elites whose response has been to bypass or ignore the people if constitutionally legal. If this is not evidence for a widening and deepening of the de-legitimisation of the EU project then how else do you explain so many referendum defeats?

    My explanation is that the peoples of Europe do not share their politicians desire for collective world power achieved by 'speaking with one voice' to the world that comes at the inevitable price of suppressing the voices of any national electorates that do not toe the EU line. What is your explanation? It very much appears that you have no explanation.


  • #1719
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,855 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    Is that really the best that you can do? I asked for an explanation from you for the established facts, and that is all you can say?
    Actually, I said more than that, as did Scofflaw. But feel free to pretend that we didn't, if it makes you feel better.
    I presume you are not denying the long sequence of lost EU referendums over the last decade? e.g.
    - In Denmark (2000) and Sweden (2003) on the Euro
    - In France and the Netherlands (2005) on the EU Constitution
    - In Ireland (2008) on the Lisbon treaty.
    Has it ever crossed your mind to wonder whether there were different reasons for these different referenda to be rejected by different electorates at different times?

    Oh wait, I asked you that before, and you pretended I didn't. Feel free to pretend I didn't make the same point in reply this time.
    My explanation is that the peoples of Europe do not share their politicians desire for collective world power achieved by 'speaking with one voice' to the world that comes at the inevitable price of suppressing the voices of any national electorates that do not toe the EU line.
    Of course that's your explanation. What's bemusing is that it has never even crossed your mind that there could possibly be any other explanation, to the extent that you appear to mentally edit out anything you read that would contradict it.

    If you're serious about discussing the topic, stop ignoring what I say and then claiming I haven't said anything.


  • #1720
    Empire o de Sun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 369 ✭✭Empire o de Sun


    I'll vote yes again.

    But I really believe the Commission should be reduced to 14 or something around that number. We don't need so many and it ends up costing all Europeans more money to run.

    Could you imagine if every county in Ireland insisted that they had a minister in the government. God know FF tried to get that far :rolleyes: after the last election.


  • #1721
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    Is that really the best that you can do? I asked for an explanation from you for the established facts, and that is all you can say?

    I presume you are not denying the long sequence of lost EU referendums over the last decade? e.g.
    - In Denmark (2000) and Sweden (2003) on the Euro
    - In France and the Netherlands (2005) on the EU Constitution
    - In Ireland (2008) on the Lisbon treaty.

    Here we have 5 referendums in different countries on giving the EU more powers over these five nations and all said NO, typically against the recommendation of government and media elites whose response has been to bypass or ignore the people if constitutionally legal. If this is not evidence for a widening and deepening of the de-legitimisation of the EU project then how else do you explain so many referendum defeats?

    My explanation is that the peoples of Europe do not share their politicians desire for collective world power achieved by 'speaking with one voice' to the world that comes at the inevitable price of suppressing the voices of any national electorates that do not toe the EU line. What is your explanation? It very much appears that you have no explanation.

    It may be, you know, that there is no single explanation. In the case of the Danish Maastricht referendum, there were certainly specific opt-outs wanted. In the case of Nice 1, the issue wasn't either the EU or the Treaty at all - it was the high-handed attitude of the government. The largest issues in the French referendum vote were unrelated to the Constitution.

    At no point has the explanation you favour - opposition to European integration, or defence of national sovereignty - been the dominant explanation for the No vote. In the case of France, the former was 4% of the No, the latter 5%. In the case of Lisbon, the former was 5%, and the latter 12% (assuming 'to protect Irish identity' is national sovereignty rather than immigration) - of those who voted No.

    That really puts you firmly in a small minority, and with the explanation you advance nowhere in the running.

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • #1722
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Oh wait, I asked you that before, and you pretended I didn't. Feel free to pretend I didn't make the same point in reply this time. Of course that's your explanation. What's bemusing is that it has never even crossed your mind that there could possibly be any other explanation, to the extent that you appear to mentally edit out anything you read that would contradict it.

    The very purpose of those referendums was to determine if those nations consented for the EU to have a given set of powers over them. Time and again, in countries far and wide, we see the people say NO. Your argument seems to be that the people were not really voting on the issue on the ballot paper. What evidence do you have that?


  • #1723
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,855 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    The very purpose of those referendums was to determine if those nations consented for the EU to have a given set of powers over them. Time and again, in countries far and wide, we see the people say NO.
    Apart, of course, from the times they said YES. But they don't count, do they?
    Your argument seems to be that the people were not really voting on the issue on the ballot paper. What evidence do you have that?
    If you spent more time reading what I write and less time making stuff up, we might be able to have something resembling an intelligent discussion.


  • #1724
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If you spent more time reading what I write and less time making stuff up, we might be able to have something resembling an intelligent discussion.

    I have read what you have written, which deserves quite a bit less respect than i have given it.

    I have a coherent explanation for the EU legitimacy crisis that fits the facts and indicates Lisbon would make the EU legitimacy problem worse. You have nothing; no alternative explanation that fits the facts. And nothing but a refusal to accept the facts. If you will not accept the results of 7 lost national referendums in different countries on giving the EU more powers as evidence that people do not want to give the EU more power then how can we have an intelligent discussion on the EU issue?

    The pro-Lisbon case is worse than threadbare. You cannot find any reasons for supporting Lisbon that can be sustained. And you cannot explain the widening and deeping de-legitimisation of the EU project. All you can do is deny facts and suggest ploughing ahead regardless. When the EU project cracks it will be its supporters that must take the blame for refusing to read the writing that is clearly on the wall.


  • #1725
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,698 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    I think Sherlock Holmes sums up this debate quite nicely

    "I never guess. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."


  • #1726
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,855 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    I have a coherent explanation for the EU legitimacy crisis that fits the facts and indicates Lisbon would make the EU legitimacy problem worse.
    No, you don't. You have invented a mythical EU legitimacy crisis, and cast around for anything you feel would support your theory. You then refuse to acknowledge even the remote possibility that there is any explanation for these things than your theory, and thereby convince yourself that you have proved something.

    It's called arguing from your conclusion. It's a logical fallacy, which you continually compound by ignoring counterpoints and questions that show up your fragile edifice for what it is. The emperor has no clothes.
    You have nothing; no alternative explanation that fits the facts. And nothing but a refusal to accept the facts.
    Why don't you try reading Scofflaw's last several responses in this thread?
    If you will not accept the results of 7 lost national referendums in different countries on giving the EU more powers as evidence that people do not want to give the EU more power then how can we have an intelligent discussion on the EU issue?
    How do you explain all the referenda that have been successful?

    Oh wait, I asked that before, and you conveniently ignored it.
    You cannot find any reasons for supporting Lisbon that can be sustained.
    What you mean is that I can't find any reasons for supporting Lisbon that fit within your personal framework.

    As I've already pointed out, you're so deeply Euroskeptical that you're incapable of acknowledging any other perspective. I don't have a problem with Euroskepticism - I disagree with it as a philosophy, but everyone has the right to their point of view.

    You're a nationalist - fine. You believe that nation-states are the perfect manifestation of God's divine plan - whatever. I disagree.
    And you cannot explain the widening and deeping de-legitimisation of the EU project.
    I can't explain the invisible fairies at the end of your garden either.
    All you can do is deny facts and suggest ploughing ahead regardless.
    I haven't denied any "facts". You haven't repeated your opinion often enough for it to have alchemically transmuted into a "fact" yet.


  • #1727
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    No, you don't. You have invented a mythical EU legitimacy crisis

    I did not invent the NO votes in Ireland, France and the Netherlands, Switzerland and Norway, or Denmark and Sweden. You are wishing them away. The presumption has to be that the voters who turned out in those 7 countries voted on the question put before them; that they did not want the EU to have the increased powers over them which it would have had, had the result been different.

    Your entire case is that the people were voting about something else; that they are really in favour of the things they voted against. It is junk.


  • #1728
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,855 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    The presumption has to be...
    If your entire argument is based on a presumption, you should probably check your premises.


  • #1729
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    That really puts you firmly in a small minority, and with the explanation you advance nowhere in the running.

    According to the EU Commission's polling 12% of Irish voted NO "to protect Irish identity", 5% were "against the idea of a unified Europe", 4% "to avoid that the EU speaks with one voice on global issues", 4% "because large Member States decide on EU matters", 3% "to protect the influence of small states". That is 30% right away and numerous other reasons, e.g. protecting Irish neutrality (6%) or tax system (6%) can also be viewed as a desire for self-government.


  • #1730
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If your entire argument is based on a presumption, you should probably check your premises.

    My argument is based on the presumption that people vote based on the question put before them. And your argument is based on the presumption that they do not.

    Who is the most likely to be correct?


  • #1731
    freyners
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,298 ✭✭✭freyners


    intially was adamanty against the treaty but very undecided now
    i have read the treaty twice and i have no problems and can see the benefits for most of the treaty. some of it is pure and utter crrap but mostly its a gud doc
    however, i have a sticking point.
    1.)article 311, which gives the eu power to implement a eu wide levy to fund itself. Considering the amount im forkin out in tax at the moment( while still a student) its a bad point. However im unsure was this covered in the guarentees or is it still there?


  • Advertisement
  • #1732
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,855 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    My argument is based on the presumption that people vote based on the question put before them. And your argument is based on the presumption that they do not.
    No - you're presuming that that's what my argument is based on.

    Your entire approach to this debate is built on presumptions. You're presuming that anything that in any way dilutes the sovereignty of nation-states is automatically bad, and working from there. I reject that premise.

    If you are unwilling to compromise on that point, we have nothing to discuss. I refuse to reduce a complex supranational issue to your monochromatic terms.


  • #1733
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    ... I have a coherent explanation for the EU legitimacy crisis that fits the facts ...

    So why don't you tell us what it is?

    A useful preliminary might be to tell us how there is a EU legitimacy crisis, as I, for one, do not see that there is one.


  • #1734
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    freyners wrote: »
    intially was adamanty against the treaty but very undecided now
    i have read the treaty twice and i have no problems and can see the benefits for most of the treaty. some of it is pure and utter crrap but mostly its a gud doc
    however, i have a sticking point.
    1.)article 311, which gives the eu power to implement a eu wide levy to fund itself. Considering the amount im forkin out in tax at the moment( while still a student) its a bad point. However im unsure was this covered in the guarentees or is it still there?

    All countries still have the power of veto over the proposal in question.

    In fact this article already exists as Article 269 EC but has been amended slightly, the only major difference that I can see is now is the addition of a paragraph stating that the Council must consult the Parliament again on how to implement such a resources after unanimous agreement by member states and approval from parliament to introduce such a measure in the first place.
    Article 269 EC

    Without prejudice to other revenue, the budget shall be financed wholly from own resources.

    The Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, shall lay down provisions relating to the system of own resources of the Community, which it shall recommend to the Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
    Article 311 TFEU
    The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies.

    Without prejudice to other revenue, the budget shall be financed wholly from own resources.

    The Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, shall lay down provisions relating to the system of own resources of the Community, which it shall recommend to the Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

    The Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall unanimously and after consulting the European Parliament adopt a decision laying down the provisions relating to the system of own resources of the Union. In this context it may establish new categories of own resources or abolish an existing category. That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

    The Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall lay down implementing measures for the Union’s own resources system insofar as this is provided for in the decision adopted on the basis of the third paragraph. The Council shall act after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.


  • #1735
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Empire o de Sun wrote: »
    I'll vote yes again.

    But I really believe the Commission should be reduced to 14 or something around that number. We don't need so many and it ends up costing all Europeans more money to run.

    Could you imagine if every county in Ireland insisted that they had a minister in the government. God know FF tried to get that far :rolleyes: after the last election.

    that was the plan originally for Lisbon

    reduce the size of the commission as they are useless bunch of highly paid beuracrats

    but the Irish people have spoken :cool: so we have to keep paying them


  • #1736
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    So why don't you tell us what it is?

    A useful preliminary might be to tell us how there is a EU legitimacy crisis, as I, for one, do not see that there is one.

    I have done.


  • #1737
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    No - you're presuming that that's what my argument is based on.

    The EU legitimacy crisis is not my personal opinion. It is that it cannot win popular consent for the powers it wields in many European countries. The evidence for that is the long sequence of lost referendums, bypassed referendums and 'keep voting until you get it right referendums' based on real votes from many millions of people and so is far more than my opinion.

    Your opinion is that these lost referendums and the millions of real NO votes behind them do not indicate anything about real voters consent for the exercise of political power from Brussels. You argument is akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and saying 'la la la la' when asked to explain why the EU keeps losing referendums!


  • #1738
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Being branded "euroskeptic" is akin to being branded as completely anti-Europe.

    What you fail to accept, Oscar, is that there are a lot of people who are ok with the concept of the EU and the transfer of some sovereignty to make it work - but think that the empowering of the EU has gone far enough and should now be stopped.


  • #1739
    97i9y3941
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,616 ✭✭✭97i9y3941


    someone answer me this,are intel/ryanair going for yes because it might allow them want to do an "irish" ferries job and reg the companies in another eu country but operate here so to screw the irish worker by making them work for the other european country rate?...


  • #1740
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    I have done.

    No you have not. Repeated assertion does not make a truth.

    On what basis do you hold that there is an EU legitimacy crisis?


  • Advertisement
  • #1741
    limklad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭limklad


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    No you have not. Repeated assertion does not make a truth.

    On what basis do you hold that there is an EU legitimacy crisis?
    He has the same problem as the Government. Repeat the mantra and people start believing it as truth,
    Remember Cowan Mantra before the last election that the Electorate believed it.
    2007/early 2008
    Cowan wrote:
    "The Principles of the economy is sound"

    "The Opposition will destroy our Economy"

    Late 2008/2009 Our Economy is in one of the Worst recession in the world.

    I compare our Economy principles and Politicians word just like the sounds my smelly farts. Pressure build up, it then releases in a series of loud sounds and it leaves foul smell behind.

    So the Government word means nothing to me, therefore I need proof to vote Yes for Lisbon Treaty, So Mantra's and Baseless Facts is not enough.
    They have yet to provide proof.


Advertisement