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

martinmcdonnell · 12-09-2009 11:08AM

If we voted yes first time round,then would we be asked to vote again on the same treaty "to be sure to be sure".I think the people of Ireland should be respected on the first vote and not to be coaxed into voting yes second time round.If the government want to start a trend in voting twice on a decision then how come they won't ask us to vote again on who we want running the government!!!I will be voting NO this year again and next year and next year and the year after that,in fact every time they give us the same treaty!

ei.sdraob · 12-09-2009 11:29AM

martinmcdonnell wrote: »

If we voted yes first time round,then would we be asked to vote again on the same treaty "to be sure to be sure".I think the people of Ireland should be respected on the first vote and not to be coaxed into voting yes second time round.If the government want to start a trend in voting twice on a decision then how come they won't ask us to vote again on who we want running the government!!!I will be voting NO this year again and next year and next year and the year after that,in fact every time they give us the same treaty!

start a trend?

are you aware that we already have a trend of multiple referendums in this country?

and a similar trend in other EU countries such as Denmark

and you are not voting on the same treaty only

its the Treaty + Guarantees

capiche?

Elba101 · 12-09-2009 01:41PM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Angela Merkel and Sarkozy have said that further Enlargement cannot take place without Lisbon. Well then that's another reason to vote no as far as I am concerned. The race to the bottom has gone far enough. I oppose Turkish membership of the EU and the latest Eurobarometer polls that asked that question (before it was conveniently removed from the poll) show Irish people opposed to Turkish EU membership. They are trying to do too much too quickly.

It's understandable that many Irish, and other EU members, would oppose the membership of a corrupt government (eg Turkey, Bulgaria). That fact is well documented. But may I remind you that when we first joined we where no model government, and still aren't. There is still many corrupt heads of state sitting at the EU table (Italy, UK and their expenses scandal as well as us).

If Europe doesn't take these countries in, on the basis that they will HAVE to straighten themselves out, who do you think will? My instinct is that if Europe don't get them on side, Russia will.

FutureTaoiseach · 12-09-2009 11:51PM

Elba101 wrote: »

It's understandable that many Irish, and other EU members, would oppose the membership of a corrupt government (eg Turkey, Bulgaria). That fact is well documented. But may I remind you that when we first joined we where no model government, and still aren't. There is still many corrupt heads of state sitting at the EU table (Italy, UK and their expenses scandal as well as us).

If Europe doesn't take these countries in, on the basis that they will HAVE to straighten themselves out, who do you think will? My instinct is that if Europe don't get them on side, Russia will.

Enlargement to include a country like Turkey would undermine market confidence in the Euro. In 2008, Turkey's exports reached $141.8 billion (main export partners: Germany 11.2%, UK 8%, Italy 6.95%, France 5.6%, Spain 4.3%, USA 3.88%; total EU exports 56.5%.) However, larger imports amounting to about $204.8 billion threaten the country's balance of trade (main import partners). EU policy is that new member states are required to eventually adopt the Euro. This the worst time to be asking the ECB to take on keeping afloat the banking-system of a huge country of 65 million people in one of the poorest countries in Europe. They would be competing for liquidity loans from the ECB with countries like Ireland.

P. Breathnach · 13-09-2009 12:08AM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Enlargement to include a country like Turkey would undermine market confidence in the Euro. In 2008, Turkey's exports reached $141.8 billion (main export partners: Germany 11.2%, UK 8%, Italy 6.95%, France 5.6%, Spain 4.3%, USA 3.88%; total EU exports 56.5%.) However, larger imports amounting to about $204.8 billion threaten the country's balance of trade (main import partners). EU policy is that new member states are required to eventually adopt the Euro. This the worst time to be asking the ECB to take on keeping afloat the banking-system of a huge country of 65 million people in one of the poorest countries in Europe. They would be competing for liquidity loans from the ECB with countries like Ireland.

That's some red herring you have dragged in there! Turkey hasn't the proverbial snowball's chance of joining the EU in the foreseeable future. If, in the distant future, it becomes a possibility, it will be on the basis of many changes in Turkey.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 13-09-2009 12:10AM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's some red herring you have dragged in there! Turkey hasn't the proverbial snowball's chance of joining the EU in the foreseeable future. If, in the distant future, it becomes a possibility, it will be on the basis of many changes in Turkey.

Yeah bit the idea might put the frighteners on someone, and that's all that really matters to someone like FT, the ends justify the means...

K-9 · 13-09-2009 12:25AM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Enlargement to include a country like Turkey would undermine market confidence in the Euro. In 2008, Turkey's exports reached $141.8 billion (main export partners: Germany 11.2%, UK 8%, Italy 6.95%, France 5.6%, Spain 4.3%, USA 3.88%; total EU exports 56.5%.) However, larger imports amounting to about $204.8 billion threaten the country's balance of trade (main import partners). EU policy is that new member states are required to eventually adopt the Euro. This the worst time to be asking the ECB to take on keeping afloat the banking-system of a huge country of 65 million people in one of the poorest countries in Europe. They would be competing for liquidity loans from the ECB with countries like Ireland.

And how is this linked to Lisbon?

I expect the same level of detail you normally use, in reply!

FutureTaoiseach · 13-09-2009 12:27AM

K-9 wrote: »

And how is this linked to Lisbon?

I expect the same level of detail you normally use, in reply!

Because Sarkozy and Merkel have said that further Enlargement cannot take place without Lisbon. Also, while Sarkozy claims to oppose Turkish EU membership, that does not tally with his government's pushing through a constitutional amendment through parliament abolishing the requirement for a referendum on Turkish EU membership. His advisor on Turkey is also a staunch supporter on Turkish EU membership. So his real beliefs on this are hard to read.

P. Breathnach · 13-09-2009 12:33AM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Because Sarkozy and Merkel have said that further Enlargement cannot take place without Lisbon. Also, while Sarkozy claims to oppose Turkish EU membership, that does not tally with his government's pushing through a constitutional amendment through parliament abolishing the requirement for a referendum on Turkish EU membership. His advisor on Turkey is also a staunch supporter on Turkish EU membership. So his real beliefs on this are hard to read.

Citations, please.

FutureTaoiseach · 13-09-2009 12:42AM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Citations, please.

Very well. Here is a link to an article in the German newspaper Frankfurter Algemeine where Merkel rules out Enlargement without Lisbon. Here is a link to an article by Jean Quatremer where Sarkozy says that Enlargement will not proceed without Lisbon.

Nicolas Sarkozy wrote:

Or, sans traité de Lisbonne, il n'y a pas d'élargissement"

Translation:

Nicolas Sarkozy wrote:

Without the Lisbon Treaty, there isn't Enlargement.

nesf · 13-09-2009 12:44AM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Because Sarkozy and Merkel have said that further Enlargement cannot take place without Lisbon. Also, while Sarkozy claims to oppose Turkish EU membership, that does not tally with his government's pushing through a constitutional amendment through parliament abolishing the requirement for a referendum on Turkish EU membership. His advisor on Turkey is also a staunch supporter on Turkish EU membership. So his real beliefs on this are hard to read.

Simply put: Further enlargement does not need to involve Turkey. This is a red herring, don't bring it up again.

FutureTaoiseach · 13-09-2009 12:45AM

nesf wrote: »

Simply put: Further enlargement does not need to involve Turkey. This is a red herring, don't bring it up again.

But the point is this: If further Enlargement is ruled out, then Turkish EU membership is ruled out. That's obvious.

nesf · 13-09-2009 12:48AM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

But the point is this: If further Enlargement is ruled out, then Turkish EU membership is ruled out. That's obvious.

That'd only be a relevant point if the only way to block Turkish membership would be to block any further Enlargement which isn't the case and further a No to Lisbon doesn't block further Enlargment either, there won't be the last Treaty.

P. Breathnach · 13-09-2009 01:01AM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Very well. Here is a link to an article in the German newspaper Frankfurter Algemeine where Merkel rules out Enlargement without Lisbon. Here is a link to an article by Jean Quatremer where Sarkozy says that Enlargement will not proceed without Lisbon.

Not good enough. We can all agree that without Lisbon enlargement is, at best, exceedingly difficult. But I want citations in support of your suggestion that there is a project to enable enlargement so as to admit Turkey.

IrishSerf · 13-09-2009 01:08AM

2 votes for YES in my house, same as last time, not because I fully understand the implications of joining or I like FF, its just that we're too small to go without the EU.Naive maybe but the conspiracy theories are too sceptical and we could end up bartering cattle and eggs with Iceland. We need them more than they need us.......Yes I say!

FutureTaoiseach · 13-09-2009 01:15AM

IrishSerf wrote: »

2 votes for YES in my house, same as last time, not because I fully understand the implications of joining or I like FF, its just that we're too small to go without the EU.Naive maybe but the conspiracy theories are too sceptical and we could end up bartering cattle and eggs with Iceland. We need them more than they need us.......Yes I say!

We are still in the EU even if we vote no, IrishSerf. Barroso and Catherine Day have said we won't be punished after a second no. Other than that, I would argue that the ECB can't afford to let any of its member states' financial-systems go down, because of the capital flight that would result that could bring the whole currency down with it. The Dutch are still in the EU after voting no.

Not good enough. We can all agree that without Lisbon enlargement is, at best, exceedingly difficult. But I want citations in support of your suggestion that there is a project to enable enlargement so as to admit Turkey.

The French parliament has passed a constitutional-amendment removing the requirement for a referendum on Turkish EU membership. I posted a link to that information already on the previous page.

K-9 · 13-09-2009 01:32AM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Because Sarkozy and Merkel have said that further Enlargement cannot take place without Lisbon. Also, while Sarkozy claims to oppose Turkish EU membership, that does not tally with his government's pushing through a constitutional amendment through parliament abolishing the requirement for a referendum on Turkish EU membership. His advisor on Turkey is also a staunch supporter on Turkish EU membership. So his real beliefs on this are hard to read.

So no real detail.

I'm shocked FT.

I thought you would have this backed up with detail.

PS. as you say yourself, Govts. can change!

PS2, Why do you keep referring to the Croatia opinion polls and the Croatian Treaty, if we will have no say?

You know rightly we will have more Treaties to vote on before the Turkey question arises.

Turkey is not a Lisbon issue, as well you know. It may attract No votes, so to Hell or to Connaught with facts.

FutureTaoiseach · 13-09-2009 01:37AM

K-9 wrote: »

So no real detail.

I'm shocked FT.

I thought you would have this backed up with detail.

PS. as you say yourself, Govts. can change!

You don't think the links to the articles in Frankfurter Algemeine and the quotes and links to Jean Quatremer's article on Sarkozy's press conference are relevant details? Nor do you draw conclusions from the French parliament changing the Constitution to allow Turkish EU membership without a referendum? Remarkable.

Nicolas Sarkozy wrote:

Without the Lisbon Treaty, there isn't Enlargement.

Chong · 13-09-2009 01:39AM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

You don't think the links to the articles in Frankfurter Algemeine and the quotes and links to Jean Quatremer's article on Sarkozy's press conference are relevant details? Nor do you draw conclusions from the French parliament changing the Constitution to allow Turkish EU membership without a referendum? Remarkable.

Mp is nooooooo oys alll batmams faily god dwakm hb`rmj

K-9 · 13-09-2009 01:40AM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

You don't think the links to the articles in Frankfurter Algemeine and the quotes and links to Jean Quatremer's article on Sarkozy's press conference are relevant details? Nor do you draw conclusions from the French parliament changing the Constitution to allow Turkish EU membership without a referendum? Remarkable.

Will we vote on future accession Treaties or not?

Martin 2 · 13-09-2009 01:43AM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Very well. Here is a link to an article in the German newspaper Frankfurter Algemeine where Merkel rules out Enlargement without Lisbon...

No it doesn't, it doesn't even mention enlargement.

FutureTaoiseach · 13-09-2009 10:55AM

Martin 2 wrote: »

No it doesn't, it doesn't even mention enlargement.

You have to login on the site.

Martin 2 · 13-09-2009 11:56AM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

You have to login on the site.

There is an article to Lisbon on the site you mentioned before but as I said it mentions nothing about enlargement. So I created a login on FAZ as you said and when I login, I logon to a live newspaper website and what’s more I don’t know what article you are referring to, I read a couple and I didn’t see the article that specifically talks about enlargement and Lisbon. There may be such an article but as a source it’s worthless if it can’t be found easily and anyway what’s the point in referencing a website entirely in German when only a very small percentage of readers here can read German.

Anyway it’s a rare sunny day and I think my time would be better spent at the seafront:)

FutureTaoiseach · 13-09-2009 12:03PM

Martin 2 wrote: »

There is an article to Lisbon on the site you mentioned before but as I said it mentions nothing about enlargement. So I created a login on FAZ as you said and when I login, I logon to a live newspaper website and what’s more I don’t know what article you are referring to, I read a couple and I didn’t see the article that specifically talks about enlargement and Lisbon. There may be such an article but as a source it’s worthless if it can’t be found easily and anyway what’s the point in referencing a website entirely in German when only a very small percentage of readers here can read German.

Anyway it’s a rare sunny day and I think my time would be better spent at the seafront:)

Then the link must be out of date. Do you accept that Sarkozy has said that Lisbon is a precondition for Enlargement?

Sam Vimes · 13-09-2009 12:27PM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

We are still in the EU even if we vote no, IrishSerf. Barroso and Catherine Day have said we won't be punished after a second no.

Firstly I would again point out that Barroso and Catherine Day are not the only people in the world who are in a position to negatively effect Ireland because of an uninformed no vote, whether consciously or though a decision to not invest here because we have indicated that we don't want to go the same direction as the rest of the EU.

And secondly, you don't believe anything these people say. You think they're anxiously awaiting our yes vote so they can strip away our sovereignty and have lied about the guarantees being legally binding in order to trick us into a yes vote. So why do you believe them when they say we won't be punished after a second no?

Elba101 · 13-09-2009 01:05PM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Enlargement to include a country like Turkey would undermine market confidence in the Euro. In 2008, Turkey's exports reached $141.8 billion (main export partners: Germany 11.2%, UK 8%, Italy 6.95%, France 5.6%, Spain 4.3%, USA 3.88%; total EU exports 56.5%.) However, larger imports amounting to about $204.8 billion threaten the country's balance of trade (main import partners). EU policy is that new member states are required to eventually adopt the Euro. This the worst time to be asking the ECB to take on keeping afloat the banking-system of a huge country of 65 million people in one of the poorest countries in Europe. They would be competing for liquidity loans from the ECB with countries like Ireland.

Fair point, i don't know the ins and outs or stats on EU exports, but, and this is a question not a statement, Croatia are due for membership in 2010. Would they not also be competing with countries like Ireland for liquidity loans?

RandomName2 · 14-09-2009 10:23AM

IrishSerf wrote: »

2 votes for YES in my house, same as last time, not because I fully understand the implications of joining or I like FF, its just that we're too small to go without the EU.Naive maybe but the conspiracy theories are too sceptical and we could end up bartering cattle and eggs with Iceland. We need them more than they need us.......Yes I say!

The political YES-men have claimed that we cannot be forced out of the EU (which legally seems to be the case) and, yet, have simultaneously launched a campaign based upon this very idea 'It's Simple, I'm Safer in Europe' (okay - it's insinuation, but it's paper-thin).

I suspect that the parties such as Fianna Fail are just plain lieing about being chucked out of Europe. But, if the EU is such an organisation to throw out a member out for being democratic - is it REALLY something you want to be part of?

Deutchland uber alles - for the autobahn, jobs and security, of course.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 14-09-2009 10:27AM

RandomName2 wrote: »

The political YES-men have claimed that we cannot be forced out of the EU (which legally seems to be the case) and, yet, have simultaneously launched a campaign based upon this very idea 'It's Simple, I'm Safer in Europe' (okay - it's insinuation, but it's paper-thin).

I suspect that the parties such as Fianna Fail are just plain lieing about being chucked out of Europe. But, if the EU is such an organisation to throw out a member out for being democratic - is it REALLY something you want to be part of?

Deutchland uber alles - for the autobahn, jobs and security, of course.

Quite correct, we won't be 'thrown out' of the EU for democratically telling them to go f*ck themselves. We won't have many friends left there though, maybe Dave Cameron, but then we have a long political history with the UK, perhaps we're better off aligned to them than the progressive continental states.

God save our gracious Queen - for the motorway, public sector jobs and security forces, of course...

Rb · 14-09-2009 10:45AM

Oh how cute, comparing voting No to telling the EU to go f**k themselves.

So in the same line, is voting Yes giving the EU a giant BJ?

PopeBuckfastXVI · 14-09-2009 10:46AM

Rb wrote: »

Oh how cute, comparing voting No to telling the EU to go f**k themselves.

So in the same line, is voting Yes giving the EU a giant BJ?

Yep

Well it would be if they had gone out of their way to not address our concerns, and we still voted yes...

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

Comments