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

ei.sdraob · 14-09-2009 04:26PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As we have both been saying, both a yes and a no vote will have consequences but "taking back our Europe" is not a consequence of a no vote. It's nonsense

exactly

thaking back what exactly?

taking back from whom ?

who is "our"?

try to answer them questions and one would quickly realize what alot of crock that is

force eleven · 14-09-2009 04:42PM

If I had been living in a cave since June last year, and came out now to see the debate going on, I'd say what exactly happened on the first vote.

Errmm, we voted No. So, that would be that - the EU politicians went back to the drawing board yes? Since France and Holland already rejected what was , in essence, the same thing? And we have a new amended treaty to vote on?
Errrmm no. Since it's little old Ireland, we'll pat them on the head and get them to give us a Yes this time round. Sure, aren't they great for that?

Whatever....

Anyhow, this 'We must vote Yes to stay at the heart of Europe' schtick is totally ludicrous. We are voting on a 300 page document, with several very important changes to be made to the way things will be run in Europe in the future. It ain't a referendum on whether we stay in Europe folks. If that were the case you'd get a 90+% yes vote, including mine.

I just feel we take another step towards federalising Europe by ratifying this, and by degrees you will see sovereignty in certain areas diluted to Brussels - i.e economically and maybe elsewhere. If people are happy to see that, then fine, I'd go along with the democratic will (I could make a smart retort here....) but I doubt they are. Most people believe what politicians tell them 100% of the time, which is unhealthy.

I used to vote yes on previous treaties up until Nice II, but my gut feeling is this isn't going to be any good for us, and if we do not vote No, we'll get nothing better. Plus, I hate being told to do something again, and get nothing for it - Guarantees I hear you say? Pffttt...

hatrickpatrick · 14-09-2009 04:45PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

"It's simple. Ireland needs Europe. Vote Yes." is not a "nonsense slogan", which is the point I have been making these past few pages. As we have both been saying, both a yes and a no vote will have consequences but "taking back our Europe" is not a consequence of a no vote. It's nonsense

The yes side can indeed condemn the no side for non-treaty reasons because they're not simply non-treaty reasons, they're non-reality reasons, they're fantasy reasons. Talking about the consequences of a vote is fine but making up consequences is not so much

It has been repeatedly stated again and again, even by yes campaigners and european politicians, that Ireland will not and cannot be forced out of the EU. Therefore it IS a nonsense slogan. It's a bit like saying "We need to be on this ship" when asked if you'd vote to change the ship's intended destination from America to Australia. We will be in Europe whether we vote yes or not, therefore it is a complete fallacy to say "we need Europe, therefore we should vote yes."

Sam Vimes · 14-09-2009 04:48PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It has been repeatedly stated again and again, even by yes campaigners and european politicians, that Ireland will not and cannot be forced out of the EU. Therefore it IS a nonsense slogan. It's a bit like saying "We need to be on this ship" when asked if you'd vote to change the ship's intended destination from America to Australia. We will be in Europe whether we vote yes or not, therefore it is a complete fallacy to say "we need Europe, therefore we should vote yes."

Which is why I said you should read the debate instead of interrupting it:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's not an insinuation at all. "It's Simple, I'm Safer in Europe" =/= "We'll be kicked out if we vote no". No one has ever claimed that we'll be kicked out but Europe wants to move on and a few hundred thousand misinformed people on the peripheries can't stop them forever. They will, and are perfectly entitled to, rewrite the treaty to exclude Ireland, only enacting the changes that Ireland can opt out of. That way they get most of the changes they want and we get to stay where we are, all on our own.

That and Ireland will have voted no to EU treaties three time if it gets voted down again. Businesses looking to locate in the EU to get access to the common market will have a choice of a country that's very expensive to do business in, has very little value other than as a jumping off point to the rest of the EU and has three times said that they don't share the same vision of Europe as the rest of the EU. That's a big risk to take when there are cheaper countries that have all the advantages of being in the EU and aren't fighting them every step of the way.

So, in short, no one's saying we're getting kicked out of the EU but that's not the only way Ireland can be negatively effected

oscarBravo · 14-09-2009 05:04PM

force eleven wrote: »

I just feel we take another step towards federalising Europe by ratifying this...

I live in Westport. I don't want to live in Dublin. Would it be a mistake for me to move to a house out the Castlebar road, because it's a "step towards" living in Dublin?

There's very little appetite in Europe for a federal superstate. There's nothing in Lisbon that takes the EU any closer to a federal superstate. Don't take my word for it; ask the German supreme court.

meglome · 14-09-2009 05:09PM

force eleven wrote: »

If I had been living in a cave since June last year, and came out now to see the debate going on, I'd say what exactly happened on the first vote.

Well nothing happened. Lisbon wasn't ratified.

force eleven wrote: »

Errmm, we voted No. So, that would be that - the EU politicians went back to the drawing board yes? Since France and Holland already rejected what was , in essence, the same thing? And we have a new amended treaty to vote on?
Errrmm no. Since it's little old Ireland, we'll pat them on the head and get them to give us a Yes this time round. Sure, aren't they great for that?

Maybe you forgot that Spain and Luxembourg approved it? And the French and Dutch didn't like a lot of the state-like language which is now gone. Does the fact that most of the EU reforms that are in Lisbon were also in the old EU constitution make them any less necessary now than they were then?

Little old Ireland voted on an EU treaty mostly for reasons not in that treaty or which were addressed. Was that a really good thing to do?

force eleven wrote: »

Anyhow, this 'We must vote Yes to stay at the heart of Europe' schtick is totally ludicrous. We are voting on a 300 page document, with several very important changes to be made to the way things will be run in Europe in the future. It ain't a referendum on whether we stay in Europe folks. If that were the case you'd get a 90+% yes vote, including mine.

Those slogans are crap. But I wonder given the utter lying from the No side why we don't hear more about that from No voters.

force eleven wrote: »

I just feel we take another step towards federalising Europe by ratifying this, and by degrees you will see sovereignty in certain areas diluted to Brussels - i.e economically and maybe elsewhere. If people are happy to see that, then fine, I'd go along with the democratic will (I could make a smart retort here....) but I doubt they are. Most people believe what politicians tell them 100% of the time, which is unhealthy.

We are sharing things in certain areas with the EU, areas which we feel are in our best interests. There are so many different groups calling for a Yes vote do you think they are all wrong or lying?

force eleven wrote: »

I used to vote yes on previous treaties up until Nice II, but my gut feeling is this isn't going to be any good for us, and if we do not vote No, we'll get nothing better. Plus, I hate being told to do something again, and get nothing for it - Guarantees I hear you say? Pffttt...

But you don't need to go with your gut instinct, you can read the treaty or one of the guides to the treaty. If something isn't working for us in the future we can negotiate changes just like we've done every other time we've had an issue since 1973.

And seriously people no one is telling anyone to do anything. If you don't want to vote then don't, that's your right. I hate our government but one area which I can commend them is getting guarantees on the concerns of the Irish people. All very fair and all very democratic.

ixtlan · 14-09-2009 05:22PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It has been repeatedly stated again and again, even by yes campaigners and european politicians, that Ireland will not and cannot be forced out of the EU. Therefore it IS a nonsense slogan. It's a bit like saying "We need to be on this ship" when asked if you'd vote to change the ship's intended destination from America to Australia. We will be in Europe whether we vote yes or not, therefore it is a complete fallacy to say "we need Europe, therefore we should vote yes."

Repeating this anology that you started earlier...

The problem is that everyone else has a destination in mind for the ship. If we vote no we are not proposing a new destination but just ruling out the current proposal. With the many reasons people are against the proposed destination it really is unclear whether any future destination will be acceptable. Nobody will throw us off the ship, but we will be left in port unable to leave and keeping everyone else stuck with us. This is going to get frustrating for everyone concerned.

Ix.

Sam Vimes · 14-09-2009 05:24PM

ixtlan wrote: »

Repeating this anology that you started earlier...

The problem is that everyone else has a destination in mind for the ship. If we vote no we are not proposing a new destination but just ruling out the current proposal. With the many reasons people are against the proposed destination it really is unclear whether any future destination will be acceptable. Nobody will throw us off the ship, but we will be left in port unable to leave and keeping everyone else stuck with us. This is going to get frustrating for everyone concerned.

Ix.

Don't forget the people who are against the proposed destination because they think its Alaska and they hate Alaska and they won't listen to the people telling them over and over that the destination is actually Tahiti.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 14-09-2009 05:25PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Don't forget the people who are against the proposed destination because they think its Alaska and they hate Alaska and they won't listen to the people telling them over and over that the destination is actually Tahiti.

Wait, I'm confused, is it one of these boats:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1382412.stm

Sam Vimes · 14-09-2009 05:27PM

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Wait, I'm confused, is it one of these boats:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1382412.stm

In a way it is. Lisbon was advertised by people who were against it as "all aboard the abortion boat"

Hydrosylator · 19-09-2009 12:01AM

It's simple. I'm safer in Europe. If Lisbon isn't ratified.

I'm going to vote no. Some reasons to vote yes, much more serious reasons to vote no.

I don't like that all the things that are going to be moved to Qualified Majority Voting are going to be voted upon by a European government which is dominated by the right wing.

I did a Wikipedia-powered investigation of all the governments of europe and and added up council votes based on whether governments were identified in Wikipedia as being left, centre or right.

To eschew any risk of "liberal media bias" arguments, I can tell you that it identified New Labour as being centre-left and identified Fianna Fáil as moderates.

Just under 64% of Council votes are held by right-wing governments. About 6% were held by centrist or moderate governments and just over 30% were held by left wing governments.

Imagine any of these parts of our lives being changed by a right-wing power which we're powerless to vote out. That's what I see when I look at Lisbon and am asked to vote yes.

Other reasons:

We don't need this Earth Defese Force thing, it opens the door for the EU ****ing countries over for the benefit of it's own wealthy elite, at the cost of it's taxpayers, much like the US has done for so long. No thanks.
This talk in the Treaty of removing things which could be a "distortion of competition". I see that as meaning, "If I can sell it, you shouldn't be allowed sort it out for yourselves for free." Principle areas of concern: health, education and justice.
Agriculture. It's nearly ****ed in this country thanks to European policies, and this treaty looks set to make it worse, not better. This an industry which employs hundreds of thousands of us here, and is the no. 1 native exporter

K-9 · 19-09-2009 12:16AM

Hydrosylator wrote: »

It's simple. I'm safer in Europe. If Lisbon isn't ratified.

I'm going to vote no. Some reasons to vote yes, much more serious reasons to vote no.

I don't like that all the things that are going to be moved to Qualified Majority Voting are going to be voted upon by a European government which is dominated by the right wing.

I did a Wikipedia-powered investigation of all the governments of europe and and added up council votes based on whether governments were identified in Wikipedia as being left, centre or right.

To eschew any risk of "liberal media bias" arguments, I can tell you that it identified New Labour as being centre-left and identified Fianna Fáil as moderates.

Just under 64% of Council votes are held by right-wing governments. About 6% were held by centrist or moderate governments and just over 30% were held by left wing governments.

Imagine any of these parts of our lives being changed by a right-wing power which we're powerless to vote out. That's what I see when I look at Lisbon and am asked to vote yes.

Other reasons:
We don't need this Earth Defese Force thing, it opens the door for the EU ****ing countries over for the benefit of it's own wealthy elite, at the cost of it's taxpayers, much like the US has done for so long. No thanks.

This talk in the Treaty of removing things which could be a "distortion of competition". I see that as meaning, "If I can sell it, you shouldn't be allowed sort it out for yourselves for free." Principle areas of concern: health, education and justice.

Agriculture. It's nearly ****ed in this country thanks to European policies, and this treaty looks set to make it worse, not better. This an industry which employs hundreds of thousands of us here, and is the no. 1 native exporter

Governments change and swings between left and right wing parties happen.

I see your point as similar to the big countries out voting us point. Can you point out when these 64% of votes agreed on something, or forced us to to do anything?

On the defence point, if you believe that, I don't think anybody can sway you on it.

We have guarantees on Family law and education.

Agriculture would probably be more fecked without the EU. We'd probably have to follow New Zealands example which would mean the end of small farms.

marco_polo · 19-09-2009 12:26AM

K-9 wrote: »

Governments change and swings between left and right wing parties happen.

I see your point as similar to the big countries out voting us point. Can you point out when these 64% of votes agreed on something, or forced us to to do anything?

On the defence point, if you believe that, I don't think anybody can sway you on it.

We have guarantees on Family law and education.

Agriculture would probably be more fecked without the EU. We'd probably have to follow New Zealands example which would mean the end of small farms.

And to add to that the prohibition on any 'distortion of competition' has been a fundamental principal of the Common market since it exception. And aside from the guarantees the EU has no compatency over national education, healthcare or criminal law policies.

The EDA is simply an agency for joint research and to get better value on expenditure for Military equiptment, which we may or may not join. I like the idea of not sending my few army friends off to Chad and places with substandard equiptment, but thats just me I suppose.

Also the farmers got just over 2 billion in total between October 2007 and October 2008 out of a total budget of 55 billion. That is about 3.5% of all payments went to a country with .8% of the population. They are really getting screwed alright
.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0501/1224245764614.html

He doesn't strike me as the type that will care that his facts are all wrong though.

vanla sighs · 19-09-2009 12:56AM

NO! And this time they bloody well better respect the democratic will of the people......

Scofflaw · 19-09-2009 01:14AM

Hydrosylator wrote: »

It's simple. I'm safer in Europe. If Lisbon isn't ratified.

I'm going to vote no. Some reasons to vote yes, much more serious reasons to vote no.

I don't like that all the things that are going to be moved to Qualified Majority Voting are going to be voted upon by a European government which is dominated by the right wing.

I did a Wikipedia-powered investigation of all the governments of europe and and added up council votes based on whether governments were identified in Wikipedia as being left, centre or right.

To eschew any risk of "liberal media bias" arguments, I can tell you that it identified New Labour as being centre-left and identified Fianna Fáil as moderates.

Just under 64% of Council votes are held by right-wing governments. About 6% were held by centrist or moderate governments and just over 30% were held by left wing governments.

Imagine any of these parts of our lives being changed by a right-wing power which we're powerless to vote out. That's what I see when I look at Lisbon and am asked to vote yes.

Fair enough. At some point, the member states may in turn be left-wing, but that doesn't change the principle.

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Other reasons:
We don't need this Earth Defese Force thing, it opens the door for the EU ****ing countries over for the benefit of it's own wealthy elite, at the cost of it's taxpayers, much like the US has done for so long. No thanks.

We're already members of the EDA, which was established in 2004. All Lisbon does is make the EDA propoerly subject to the treaties.

Hydrosylator wrote: »

[*]This talk in the Treaty of removing things which could be a "distortion of competition". I see that as meaning, "If I can sell it, you shouldn't be allowed sort it out for yourselves for free." Principle areas of concern: health, education and justice.

Protocol 27, Article 2:

Article 2 The provisions of the Treaties do not affect in any way the competence of Member States to provide, commission and organise non-economic services of general interest.

"Services of general interest" = public services. "Non-economic" = paid for by the government.

Distortion of competition isn't directly applicable to public services, unless they're either in the form of a government-supported privatised company or otherwise able to compete with other companies (particularly abroad) while being funded by a government. Nothing in the treaties impacts, for example, the NHS, and nothing in the treaties would prevent us from implementing an Irish NHS fully paid for by tax revenues, as opposed to the bastardised multi-tier system we currently rejoice in.

Hydrosylator wrote: »

[*]Agriculture. It's nearly ****ed in this country thanks to European policies, and this treaty looks set to make it worse, not better. This an industry which employs hundreds of thousands of us here, and is the no. 1 native exporter

It's hard to take that seriously, I'm afraid. Agriculture has suffered from the concentration of food sales into a few multinational supermarket chains. If it weren't for the EU subsidies, there wouldn't be any small-holder farmers left in the country.

cordially,
Scofflaw

aftermn · 19-09-2009 01:23AM

What is the point in a referendum, the result of which is ignored?

Cowen, as our leader, should have gone to Europe with our democratic decision and told them that, unless they had a referendum throughout the EU overiding the Irish vote, the treaty was dead.

He is a democratic disgrace.

I am normally pro europe, but was saddened to see that europe did not accept and protect the democratic decision given in the last referendum. Their failure to do so damages their claim to being democratically based.

Dinner · 19-09-2009 01:24AM

aftermn wrote: »

I am normally pro europe, but was saddened to see that europe did not accept and protect the democratic decision given in the last referendum. Their failure to do so damages their claim to being democratically based.

Are you disapointed by their attempts to address the concerns that the public had?

I'm not.

Scofflaw · 19-09-2009 01:40AM

aftermn wrote: »

What is the point in a referendum, the result of which is ignored?

Cowen, as our leader, should have gone to Europe with our democratic decision and told them that, unless they had a referendum throughout the EU overiding the Irish vote, the treaty was dead.

He is a democratic disgrace.

I am normally pro europe, but was saddened to see that europe did not accept and protect the democratic decision given in the last referendum. Their failure to do so damages their claim to being democratically based.

That mixes up quite a lot of things.

First, the Irish government is elected to run the country on the people's behalf. That doesn't mean simply doing whatever the people want, because the people often want things that are impossible (like no taxes and great public services). So, while the Irish government could have stood by the No vote and told the other member states that they were sorry, but no dice, they were under no obligation to do so. The only obligation they were under was to consider what was in Ireland's best interests as they saw it - and they saw ratifying Lisbon as in Ireland's best interests. You're welcome to disagree with them about that, of course, but that's simply a difference of opinion on what Ireland's best interests are.

Second, there's no way of 'overriding' an Irish referendum. The only mechanism that can reverse the result of an Irish referendum is another Irish referendum.

Third, it's not up to Europe to protect our democracy by ignoring what the Irish government says. If the Irish government says "we're going to run another referendum", that's between the Irish government and the Irish people - the EU cannot, and should not, disagree with what they're told by the Irish government. Where would that end, exactly?

The decision to hold another referendum is a purely internal Irish matter, which has arisen because the Irish government believes that ratifying Lisbon is in the best interests of Ireland, has the constitutional freedom to run another referendum to do so, and is willing to spend some of its very limited political capital to do so, after making an almighty hames of the first campaign. The EU has no part in the decision at all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9 · 19-09-2009 02:23AM

aftermn wrote: »

Cowen, as our leader, should have gone to Europe with our democratic decision and told them that, unless they had a referendum throughout the EU overiding the Irish vote, the treaty was dead.

A No vote did not mean that. A certain section of the No vote want it, definitely.

If the Yes side wins, we'll know the majority of Irish people do not see that as a major concern, as they'll be WELL aware of the argument.

If we Vote No again. time to analyse the No vote again and see if this is a big concern.

This time, voting No, puts responsibilities on No voters to clearly state why they voted No. No means No will not wash after another No. The Govt. and the EU will want to know reasons for voting No. No voters will need to inform the EU why they rejected it, in CLEAR terms, not a mish mash of left and right wing views.

WeeBushy · 19-09-2009 12:31PM

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Agriculture. It's nearly ****ed in this country thanks to European policies, and this treaty looks set to make it worse, not better. This an industry which employs hundreds of thousands of us here, and is the no. 1 native exporter
[/LIST]

You couldn't be farther from the truth.

The EU, with the CAP reforms and more recently decoupling through single farm payments subject to cross-compliance have allowed Ireland be a real player in world export markets in beef, dairy and pork products. The introduction of the CAP reform made Ireland the force it is today, before the 1980s all farm were small, family run enterprises with very small profit margins and extremely inefficient. With the EU, the agricultural enterprise exploded, making it into what it is today. EU policies and grants have allowed us to compete with the best genetics, feeding regimes, farm practices etc. worldwide.

Agriculture has been hit very hard lately, as have all industries in Ireland by the way, but without the EU it would have collapsed altogether. Rightly or wrongly EU policies have protected us from cheap imported meat from the likes of Brazil which is a very real threat to our beef industry, without the EU's protection we simply would not be able to compete.

EU policies have improved welfare standards and very importantly environmental regulations, protecting our native wildlife and environment as a whole. Agriculture produces the highest proportion of green house gases (mainly methane and CO2) out of all sectors and if it wasn't for EU funding directives and research it would be much, much higher than it is presently.

In short, without the EU our agricultural industry as we know it, and the great many jobs it creates, would be obliterated.

Mr Doyle · 19-09-2009 12:51PM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

As a convinced pro-European I am voting No. Reasons:
1. I oppose the enshrinement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into EU law. This is the main issue for me. I don't trust the ECJ to interpret the Treaty in a manner that adequately respects the principle of subsidiarity as I see it. Article 6 of the TEU as amended by Lisbon states that the Charter will have the same legal-value as the Treaties. And who interprets the Treaties? In the final analysis the ECJ does through case-law. If this goes through, expect a flood of legal-challenges to Irish law on the supposed basis that it is repugnant to the Charter. I know Article 51 of the Charter states that the rights under the Charter apply to EU institutions but it also states that it applies to member states implementing EU law. The problem is that the Charter will itself be EU law. In that context, I am concerned that the ECJ will come out with rulings imposing the transposition of the Charter into national law in order to comply with EU law - of which the Charter will be part. I am unwilling to take the risk, especially with constitutional-law experts like Gerard Hogan warning last year to the National Forum on Europe that the Charter could "eclipse" the Supreme Court. This issue is so important to me, that I would have voted yes if Ireland had a Protocol opting us out of the Charter. The govt wasn't interested in that, so I will vote no.
2. I oppose the following provision in Part 2 - Paragraph 7 of the 28th amendment to the Constitution Bill 2009 that allows the Government, with the support of the Oireachtas, to surrender Protocol 21 that gives Ireland the right to optout of common policies in the areas of Justice and Home Affairs:
As Qualified Majority Voting is extended to Justice and Home Affairs under Lisbon, paragraph 7 amounts to a license for the politicians to have Irish Justice and Home Affairs policy, including asylum and immigration, border-controls, judicial cooperation and policing, determined by Qualified Majority Voting in the Council of Ministers. Yes I know the European Parliament will get a vote on it too, but we're a drop in the ocean there with 12 MEPs out of 785.
3. The 'guarantees' on the Commissioner are not legally-binding because they are not included in the Council decisions made in Brussels. The IIEA site acknowledges that the decisions applied to taxation, neutrality and abortion but not the Commission or workers-rights. I don't trust the politicians to keep their word on the Commissioner. Why couldn't they have included the promise of a permanent Commissioner in the European Council decisions?
4. I oppose expansion of Qualified Majority Voting, which is extended to these 50 areas under Lisbon. Granted, the number falls to 34 if you exclude the optout from Justice and Home Affairs. The problem is, as stated above, that Paragraph 7(iii) of the 28th amendment to the Constitution Bill 2009 explicitly states that the Government, with the support of the Oireachtas, may surrender Protocol 21, which allows us this optout in the first place.
5. The additional role for national-parliaments is advisory and pathetic in comparison with the growth of legislative power in the Brussels institutions, and the growth of the judicial role of the ECJ in the context of the Charter.
6.The Spanish unemployment rate of 18% suggests that the economic-dividend from voting yes is not there.
7. I partially blame the housing-crash on cheap-credit from the ECB. It gives me pause for thought on further centralisation of power in the EU institutions, which give too much weighting to the concerns of the Big States relative to the small.
8.I oppose the abolition of the rotating-presidency of the European Council in favour of a person chosen by QMV. That gives 4 Big States an absolute veto on candidates, making it unlikely Ireland will get to preside over Council business again.

All good points Future Taoiseach. You're clearly well informed.

Have you seen the new No to Lisbon Facebook Challenge?

There's an amusing mock up poster of Brian Cowen that everyone is changing their profile pic to? it's hilarious

You can download the image here;:

http://www.mediafire.com/?exmdnjmmmgm

Vote No Peeps.

ei.sdraob · 19-09-2009 01:13PM

Mr Doyle wrote: »

You can download the image here;:

http://www.mediafire.com/?exmdnjmmmgm

Vote No Peeps.

what does NAMA and FF have to do with Lisbon?

sigh another new poster

Mr Doyle · 19-09-2009 01:57PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

what does NAMA and FF have to do with Lisbon?

sigh another new poster

Consider it a montage of treachery.

Pray tell what does ratification of Lisbon got to do with solving the banking induced financial problems?

"Yes to Jobs"
"Yes to Recovery"

Does anybody actually believe that tripe?

Kindly illustrate the cause-and-effect mechanism of the eradication of the global banking crisis and the ratification of Lisbon. I'm sure the good people of South East Asia and the US will be on the edge of their seats waiting for this treaty to be passed so that it can solve the international banking systemic problems. Good Grief.

In your reply please refrain from using the words "image abroad". Imagination has nothing to do with a solution. Empirical testifiable data only please.

ShooterSF · 19-09-2009 03:09PM

K-9 wrote: »

A No vote did not mean that. A certain section of the No vote want it, definitely.

If the Yes side wins, we'll know the majority of Irish people do not see that as a major concern, as they'll be WELL aware of the argument.

If we Vote No again. time to analyse the No vote again and see if this is a big concern.

This time, voting No, puts responsibilities on No voters to clearly state why they voted No. No means No will not wash after another No. The Govt. and the EU will want to know reasons for voting No. No voters will need to inform the EU why they rejected it, in CLEAR terms, not a mish mash of left and right wing views.

Why not put a few lines on the bottom of the voting slip so
people can give their reasons?

The Volt · 19-09-2009 03:10PM

Mr Doyle wrote: »

Consider it a montage of treachery.

Pray tell what does ratification of Lisbon got to do with solving the banking induced financial problems?

"Yes to Jobs"
"Yes to Recovery"

Does anybody actually believe that tripe?

Kindly illustrate the cause-and-effect mechanism of the eradication of the global banking crisis and the ratification of Lisbon. I'm sure the good people of South East Asia and the US will be on the edge of their seats waiting for this treaty to be passed so that it can solve the international banking systemic problems. Good Grief.

In your reply please refrain from using the words "image abroad". Imagination has nothing to do with a solution. Empirical testifiable data only please.

Recovery and Jobs through a yes vote are a lot more likely than the 'tripe' that the No side comes out with.

K-9 · 19-09-2009 03:14PM

ShooterSF wrote: »

Why not put a few lines on the bottom of the voting slip so
people can give their reasons?

LOL, that actually would be good, but I doubt its a runner!

Mr Doyle · 19-09-2009 03:18PM

Voltwad wrote: »

Recovery and Jobs through a yes vote are a lot more likely than the 'tripe' that the No side comes out with.

Voting yes to Lisbon does NOTHING to solve the banking crisis...NOTHING.

The ECB printing money from thin air and loaning it to us solves NOTHING.

The government sell of "Yes to Recovery" is merely a political game that will come back to bite them in a BIG way.

If you want to see a country that have tackled the Banking crisis properly, look to Iceland. They let their banks fail at the expense of the bank owners and shareholders, not the people or future generations. They will come out of this recession in a much healthier position than Ireland. Mark my words.

The Volt · 19-09-2009 03:23PM

But Lisbon is NOTHING to do with the banking crisis. It's a seperate matter completely. However, it's very fair to state that working with Europe is going to get us out of this mess quicker.

Mr Doyle · 19-09-2009 03:24PM

Voltwad wrote: »

But Lisbon is NOTHING to do with the banking crisis. It's a seperate matter completely. However, it's very fair to state that working with Europe is going to get us out of this mess quicker.

I didn't realise we are leaving?

Hydrosylator · 19-09-2009 04:05PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

We're already members of the EDA, which was established in 2004. All Lisbon does is make the EDA propoerly subject to the treaties.

I know what you mean, but there's more militarism besides in the constitution. And if it's in the constitution it's very hard to argue against. And we still don't need it, and I reckon it offers more harm than good.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Article 2 The provisions of the Treaties do not affect in any way the competence of Member States to provide, commission and organise non-economic services of general interest.
"Services of general interest" = public services. "Non-economic" = paid for by the government.

Where does that say that they don't have to make concessions to private interests to allow competition? All that means is that they can't stop the state from providing public services, it doesn't say they don't have to allow entry to the private sector in any way shape or form.

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's hard to take that seriously, I'm afraid. Agriculture has suffered from the concentration of food sales into a few multinational supermarket chains. If it weren't for the EU subsidies, there wouldn't be any small-holder farmers left in the country.

I can see why it's hard for you to understand; you don't know what you're talking about.

In the EU, farmers are in the unique position of not being allowed set the price for their own produce. Only dairies, granaries, meat factories, etc are in a position to name the price, and as it's only the buyer naming that price, it's a bad price for the farmers. In theory, you can take your business elsewhere, but each other dairy will make an excuse for milk. The dairies are effectively a cartel.

The supermarkets certainly haven't helped but the fact is, when we originally joined the EU, prices went way up, and have gone steadily down ever since. They set the prices consumers pay, not the prices farmers get paid. With milk, for example, it's the dairies. A supermarket does make 40c profit on a litre of milk that a farmer gets paid 20c total for, that's true. But if they started paying 20c/l more to the dairies, do you think the farmers would get any of it?

Prices for Irish farmers were bad long before Tesco, Aldi and Lidl came here. That's a fact.

The subsidies are bull****, farmers don't want a handout, they just want to get the value of their labour for what they produce without having to go begging to anyone.

So why don't they all get together and hold out for more money from the dairies? They can't, that's illegal.

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

Comments