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

Peppapig wrote: »

Ok I'm undecided, as far as I can see I have nothing to lose by voting yes.

If I vote no, will it have implications for the future if our economy.

Explain to me why I should vote Yes/No, 1 more vote to your side!

This post sums up my reasons for voting Yes pretty much: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61327732&postcount=1 . I also like that there's an opt-out clause in case we ever want to leave the EU in the future. Spiting Cóir is just the cherry

nesf wrote: »

It's not really. If we lost our seat on the Council of Europe I'd agree with you but we don't. All that happens is that decisions are taking jointly with other EU members, we maintain a veto in most areas and so on.

If we truly lost sovereignty and no longer had any influence over decisions I'd be campaigning for a No vote, but we don't, we pool sovereignty with others etc.

Loose definition of the term 'we'.

You mean our government.

In this limited capacity, you are correct (even though on an individual basis the Irish government's strength is actually reduced).

What I was talking about was the individual's relationship with the state or suprastate, not the states' relationship to the suprastate.

But you don't mind other people making decisions for you. That's fine.

I am glad we will have a general election and have a means to change our national government - even if the means to do so is clunky and open to error.

Rather that than no direct means at all.

But people like yourself can extrapolate any sort of justification out of the term 'representative democracy' which in realtity is just a by-word for a greater acceptable distance between peoples' votes and the mantle of power.

Lord Mandleson's 'election' success is a nice example of this. But, who cares if a legislature is popular or not, as its purpose first and foremost is to RULE. As Plato, no doubt, would have said (although I find it hard to believe he would have found the unelected euro-beurocrats to be made of gold)

While I would agree that being removed from the EU decision making process is a good reason to vote No, I don't think that this is the case under Lisbon. The EU parliament (which we directly elect) takes more power from the Council of the European Union (which we are distanced from). National parliaments have an enhanced role in the EU decision making process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon#National_parliaments . And the Citizen's initiative means the commission has to consider proposals direct from citizens if they have a million signatures collected.

Spiderspeed

Peppapig wrote: »

Ok I'm undecided, as far as I can see I have nothing to lose by voting yes.

If I vote no, will it have implications for the future if our economy.

Explain to me why I should vote Yes/No, 1 more vote to your side!

Toss a coin!

nesf

RandomName2 wrote: »

Loose definition of the term 'we'.

You mean our government.

In this limited capacity, you are correct (even though on an individual basis the Irish government's strength is actually reduced).

What I was talking about was the individual's relationship with the state or suprastate, not the states' relationship to the suprastate.

But you don't mind other people making decisions for you. That's fine.

I am glad we will have a general election and have a means to change our national government - even if the means to do so is clunky and open to error.

Rather that than no direct means at all.

But people like yourself can extrapolate any sort of justification out of the term 'representative democracy' which in realtity is just a by-word for a greater acceptable distance between peoples' votes and the mantle of power.

Lord Mandleson's 'election' success is a nice example of this. But, who cares if a legislature is popular or not, as its purpose first and foremost is to RULE. As Plato, no doubt, would have said (although I find it hard to believe he would have found the unelected euro-beurocrats to be made of gold) .

We don't have any direct control over our sovereignty anyway! You may want this to be the case but it isn't. Your argument operates under this fallacy.

Stark wrote: »

While I would agree that being removed from the EU decision making process is a good reason to vote No, I don't think that this is the case under Lisbon. The EU parliament (which we directly elect) takes more power from the Council of the European Union (which we are distanced from). National parliaments have an enhanced role in the EU decision making process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon#National_parliaments . And the Citizen's initiative means the commission has to consider proposals direct from citizens if they have a million signatures collected.

Oh I know this.

There are two problems:

1. The EU Parliament is incrediably weak
2. It is debateable what legislative competancies the EU should have in the first place.

If Lisbon only increased the powers of the Parliament I would vote yes. However, it also increases the power and scope of the Consilium and Commission. The EU Parliament is flawed in a number of ways, and even if and when Lisbon is passed it will still be eclipsed. I believe that we should be able to keep our national governments on a tight enough leash without them being able to go over our heads' with supranational agreements. Whilst up until now such agreements have been primarily economic (indeed this is the whole purpose of the EU/EC/EEC/ECSC) it is slowly, but surely delving into national matters. Which is what gets people worked up about random (and somewhat achronistic) areas of legisaltion such as abortion and neutrality (primarily because these in particular are Irish sacred cows). These particular issues, and the guarantees surround them, are both red herrings.

So not only am I voting against this bid to increase the power of the EU, as a side issue am am voting against the manner in which the electorate of the EU has been utterly disregarded and patronised in the ratification process. Which I believe is related to the former in terms of the extent to which the national governments respect their electorates and are in keeping with popular opinion in terms of the EU (95% of the Dail can't be wrong!).

Oh and it can be taken as a protest vote against FF as well, for all I care :rolleyes:.

nesf wrote: »

We don't have any direct control over our sovereignty anyway! You may want this to be the case but it isn't. Your argument operates under this fallacy.

I believe we elect people.

I may be wrong.

But I seem to remeber some elections to our national legislature...

There is an upper house, as well, to be sure. Which is also mostly directly elected. And even then, it is very weak in comparison to the Dail.

The ministerial positions in government are not directly decided by the public, but they are indirectly decided. This, is perhaps, a flaw in the the Irish electoral system, but not a big issue either way.

Emm... even the President is elected by popular vote...

So... no direct control. I was obviously 'mistaken'.

K-9

RandomName2 wrote: »

The ministerial positions in government are not directly decided by the public, but they are indirectly decided. This, is perhaps, a flaw in the the Irish electoral system, but not a big issue either way.

These Ministers then represent you at the Council of Ministers.

K-9 wrote: »

These Ministers then represent you at the Council of Ministers.

Ok - sure. But I am also directly represented by the minsters of other countries.

Which, as I said, I don't mind in terms of international economics. I do mind in terms of legislation which becomes law on the streets of Ireland - which up until now has still been rather limited, but will be extended under Lisbon/Constitution.

Oh, and Commissioners don't even have to be elected.

Nice...

RandomName2 wrote: »

Or you can look at Spain as another example of an economic bubble collapsing.

can you elaborate on this phrase?

therewillbe wrote: »

Was I not heard the first time! NO is NO. :mad:

The things have changed since the last referendum, now it's time to change your opinion too.

Alfasud

darkman2 wrote: »

October 2nd is the date - how do you intend to vote?

I dont trust the Government. If they say yes I say No

What about the opposition parties who are also calling for a Yes vote? Do you trust the likes of Cóir and Sinn Féin who are calling for a No vote? Given that neither side is particularly trustworthy, do you not think it makes more sense to educate yourself on the Treaty so you can make up your own mind?

Euroland wrote: »

can you elaborate on this phrase?

GDP growth preidcated to an unprecedented level on stupid property bubble:

Not only this, but bank liquidity was predicated on the market value on property!

Demand in property drops, value of property drops, negative equity and market stagnation ensues. Bad bank loans. Reduced capacity for banks to grant new loans (indeed, the capacity for most banks to survive is in question).

As witnessed in USA (particularly California), Iceland, Spain, Ireland, and to a lesser extent in the rest of Europe.

China/ India only affected insofar that less GDP means less imports from Western countries.

And the political proponents of the treaty, like FF, claim that Lisbon will solve all this.

Does that explain the statement sufficiently?

And if you are talking about the Recession as changed circumstances...

Stark wrote: »

What about the opposition parties who are also calling for a Yes vote? Do you trust the likes of Cóir and Sinn Féin who are calling for a No vote? Given that neither side is particularly trustworthy, do you not think it makes more sense to educate yourself on the Treaty so you can make up your own mind?

Personally I find that the political opponents of the treaty are only vaguely political and have never actually been in government (in ROI at least).

It is more worrying when our governmental parties cannot be trusted.

Euroland wrote: »

The things have changed since the last referendum, now it's time to change your opinion too.

Or maybe get a few new catchphrases

Alfasud wrote: »

I dont trust the Government. If they say yes I say No

And yet I get the sneaky suspicion that if the government said No you'd still say No.

RandomName2 wrote: »

It is more worrying when our governmental parties cannot be trusted.

It might be if only the governmental parties were calling for a Yes vote. But as you already know most of our politicians, unions, academics, media and business leaders are calling for a Yes vote.

Far Corfe

RandomName2 wrote: »

Personally I find that the political opponents of the treaty are only vaguely political and have never actually been in government (in ROI at least).

It is more worrying when our governmental parties cannot be trusted.

And if a majority of citizens are opposed to this treaty how can governmental parties be called representative and how can we believe we live in a representative democracy.

Far Corfe wrote: »

And if a majority of citizens are opposed to this treaty how can governmental parties be called representative and how can we believe we live in a representative democracy.

According to the last opinion polls the majority of citizens support the treaty. And in Lisbon 1 about 25%(ish) of the electorate voted No, still not any kind of majority.

Far Corfe

Euroland wrote: »

can you elaborate on this phrase?

Spains economy has tanked and its unemployment rocketed since being the only country to vote in favor of the euro con therefore so much for the "Yes-for the economy" rubbish.

RandomName2 wrote: »

GDP growth preidcated to an unprecedented level on stupid property bubble:

Not only this, but bank liquidity was predicated on the market value on property!

Demand in property drops, value of property drops, negative equity and market stagnation ensues. Bad bank loans. Reduced capacity for banks to grant new loans (indeed, the capacity for most banks to survive is in question).

As witnessed in USA (particularly California), Iceland, Spain, Ireland, and to a lesser extent in the rest of Europe.

China/ India only affected insofar that less GDP means less imports from Western countries.

And the political proponents of the treaty, like FF, claim that Lisbon will solve all this.

Does that explain the statement sufficiently?

And if you are talking about the Recession as changed circumstances...

1) The property bubble in Spain is near its end and now wise people start buying there again.

2) We all witnessed similar property bubble in the US, which is not a part of the EU, so, I believe, we cannot blame EU for this crisis.

Far Corfe wrote: »

Spains economy has tanked and its unemployment rocketed since being the only country to vote in favor of the euro con therefore so much for the "Yes-for the economy" rubbish.

By "Euro", I assume you mean the Lisbon Treaty as the euro is a currency that's used in far more places than Spain.

I assume you're taking your little "Spain's economy collapsed as a result of voting Yes to Lisbon" rubbish from the Cóir campaign website as that's the only place I've ever seen that mentioned. Hard to see how voting for a treaty that isn't yet ratified is supposed to have any effect on a country's economy. By Cóir's "correlation = causality" logic, it also pissed rain on us all summer because we voted No.