nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why should I vote Yes?

roosh

We are just over a week away from a pretty monumental referendum in this country. On the 2nd of October we are being asked to cast our votes [for the second time] on the Lisbon Treaty. We are being given the opportunity to do what many other countries have been denied the opportunity to do, and that is have a say on how, not only this country, but how the European Union will be run. The Lisbon Treaty, could shape the future of our little Island nation and will indeed shape the political landscape in Europe. To put it euphemistically, this is kind of a big deal.

It seems that the decision is simple, tick a box, either Yes, or No. What you base your decision on is entirely up to you. For me, it isn't a simple Yes or No answer, it isn't a case of which campaign was better, or indeed more full of ****, which side do I believe more, should we really say No again, how will we be viewed by the rest of Europe?

For me, and this is just my own opinion, the question is not a simple Yes or No question, its a simple, should I vote yes or not? The reason I see it this way, is because a Yes vote is the one that is going to change things, dramatically, for good. Voting yes means that the scheduled changes [that have been scheduled for years] will not come into effect, rather the political landscape in Europe, and therefore Ireland, will be changed dramatically, for ever. There is no going back. For this reason, for me, the onus is very clearly on the Yes campaign to provide me with some pretty solid reasons as to why I should cast my vote in their favour, instead of against them. For me what the No campaign says is irrelevant. I am a willing Yes voter, just so long as I have some concrete reasons to do so. Otherwise I'm afraid, logically I have to vote No.

Have the Yes campaign overwhelmingly convinced me, through strong factual reasoning, logical debate and passion, that Yes is the correct vote? Sadly the answer is No. It is clear that all that has come from the Yes campaign is little more than [at the risk of being accused of repition] empty Rhetoric, Logical Fallacies, and scaremongering. While the No campaign may be equally guilty of such a shoddy campaign, I must reiterate that, for me at least, the onus is on the Yes campaign to convince me that altering the political landscape for ever [for ever ever?] is the right decision. That has not been the case.

A very quick and basic analysis of the Yes campaign posters, will show that either they don't really understand the treaty themselves, or they are simply happy to fob us off with the kind of empty rhetoric and fallacious arguments that they hope will scare us into making a decision, that will see only the politicians of this country save face:

Yes to Jobs = Logical Fallacy. Voting No, isn't necessarily a vote against Jobs, in fact, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that any jobs will be created in Ireland as a direct result of voting Yes. Voting No will not make any other European countries more favourable to do business in, because the economic landscape will not change with either a No or a Yes Vote. Businesses may favour a Yes vote but that is because they stand to profit it from it. That does not necessarily mean that the Irish economny will benefit as a result. Those companies that benefit, such as Intel, would have no obligation to create jobs in Ireland, they are free to relocate to low cost centres [which Ireland is not]. So Yes does not necessarily mean that Jobs will be created, in fact it isn't going to create many jobs at all.

Yes to Europe = Logical Fallacy. Again, voting No doesn't meant that we are voting against Europe and all that it stand for. On the contrary we would be exercising our democratic right - something denied to other citzens of Europe when it came to the Lisbon treaty. A not vote is a vote against Lisbon, not against Europe.

We are stronger with Europe = Logical Fallacy. We are indeed stronger becuase of Europe, but again voting No doesn't mean we're going to be turfed out. In fact, things will stay pretty similar to the way they are, in terms of how Europe is run. Voting no doesn't mean that we will be weak and without Europe, we will still be there and we will still have the same voting rights when it comes to various referenda.

"Its simple, I want a strong voice in Europe - Vote Yes" = Lie. This is just an out and out lie. If we vote Yes, then we will be reducing our voting rights, we will have less of a say, and will be at the behest of bigger nations, and what is good for them will have to be good for us. A no Vote means we will actually have a stronger voice in Europe.

Some peolpe fear that voting No will weaken our bargaining power in Europe, because countries will shun us. This is idle speculation. It is equally valid to posit that Europe will look to curry favour with us in the future so that we won't be such a fly in the ointment, becuase remember, if we vote No then when it comes to wide ranging reforms like this, we will have the same power as we do now, so they had better be favourable to us, or the won't get passed. If we vote yes, we won't have the same power, we will have a weak voice in Europe.

It is claimed that Lisbon will ensure that Europe works better, but will this really be the case? The way that the voting rights will work if Lisbon is ratified will mean that in order to veto decisions an alliance of four [or more] states, representing 55% of the population of Europe, will be needed. This could mean that the bigger countries can force new policies and legislation through without any hinderance, or that various alliances will be formed so that the smaller states can veot issues that are important to them, meaning that europe becomes divided, or that the "big boys" can throw the smaller nations a bone every now and then to ensure that the legislation they favour gets passed.

If people are concerned of the perception of Ireland after this referendum, be assure that it will not be the No vote that will embarrass us, it will be the Yes vote. As you can see above, the Yes campaign (who are looking for the change) have seen fit to fob us off, with propoganda and rhetoric, hoping that we will be sufficiently frightened of the current economic climate to see no other way out. If we vote Yes, after having already voted no, based on such an insulting Yes campaign - a move that will see us weaken our position in Europe - you can be pretty sure that we will be the laughing stock of Europe.

Personally I haven't been convinced that the proposed changes are positive, so I am not necessarily voting for the No campaign, I'm voting against the Yes campaign, because it seems more logical.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Daftendirekt

This should really be a sticky by now.

sink wrote:

1. Increase of power to the European Parliament
The European Parliament is the only directly elected body of the EU and as such is the most democratic; the Treaty of Lisbon will increase the power of the European Parliament. The parliament currently votes on only 80% legislation, the Treaty of Lisbon increases this to 95%; this is known as the ordinary legislative procedure.[Many Articles, TFEU] The parliament currently only approves 20% of the budget; this will be increased to 100%.[Article 314, TFEU]
2. Permanent President of the European Council [Article 15, TEU]
The current system for President of the European Council rotates between states every six months. The head of government of each state fills the roll; this can cause the President to push his/her countries national agenda often against the will of other states. The Lisbon treaty replaces this system with a more permanent position elected by the European council for a two and a half year term. The new President will be obligated to do what is best for everyone not just one individual state and will act on direction from the European Council. The president has no formal powers beyond co-ordinating the affairs of the European Council.
3. The Council will meet in the open [Article 16, TEU]
At present the Council of Ministers meets behind closed doors. This arouses suspicion in the public as they do not get to see how deals are reached. Under the Lisbon treaty the Councils must meet in the open when deliberating on draft legislative acts providing valuable transparency. Hopefully this will have the added benefit of engaging the public conscious, giving greater insight to EU affairs and raising the level of knowledge.
4. New powers of oversight for national parliaments [Article 12, TEU]
National parliaments are to be provided with all draft legislation and other documents produced by the Commission at the same time as they are provided to the Council of ministers and the European Parliament. There will be a period of 8 weeks before any decision can be taken by the Council and EP to allow national parliaments to provide input. They must also be provided with the Councils agendas and decisions. This enables the parliamentary opposition a chance confront the government on its activities at the EU.
5. More clearly defines the competences of the Union & Enshrines the principal of subsidiarity [Article 5, TEU]
The treaty for the first time clearly defines and sets limits on the competences held by the European Union. Under the principle of conferral only those competencies explicitly conferred by the member states in the treaties can be dealt with at EU level. All other areas are off limits and remain under the sole jurisdiction of the national governments e.g. family law (abortion, divorce), direct tax (corporate tax, income tax).

The treaty introduces the principle of subsidiarity. This means that legislation which falls under the competence of both the EU and national governments will only be enacted at EU level if individual states can’t do so as efficiently or effectively on their own. The national parliaments will be able to interject if it is felt that any legislative proposal does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. If 1/3 of national parliaments do so the proposal has to be reviewed (1/4 for proposals in the area of Justice & Policing).
6. Introduces simplified revision procedure [Article 47, TEU]
The treaty introduces a new simpler method of amending the treaties in areas of internal EU policy (i.e. concerning the functioning of the EU’s institutions). This method allows for individual amendments to be passed separately without the need to hold an Intergovernmental Conference and draft an entire new international treaty, which is extremely time consuming and expensive. The new procedure still requires the amendments to be ratified by each nation in accordance with their constitutional requirements, which still will require a referendum in this country if it’s not compatible with our constitution. Hopefully this will cut down the complexity of future EU referenda as rather than having to vote on a huge number of changes at once, it will enable us to vote on individual treaty amendments. The simplified revision procedure cannot be used to increase the competences of the EU that will still require a entire new treaty.
7. Increase the Unions foreign policy ability
The Treaty creates a new role known as the ‘High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs’ [Article 18, TEU]. It merges many existing positions including the 'High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy' and the 'European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy' into one position. This is to provide a more coherent and consistent voice for Europe in the international sphere. Currently there are so many people representing the foreign policy of the EU, foreign governments are confused about who to contact in regards to specific areas and the unions’ voice is disjointed and less coherent. The Lisbon treaty also creates an EU diplomatic corps know as the External Action Service to better facilitate the EU’s foreign policy.[Article 27, TEU]
8. Creates new Citizens Initiative [Article 11, TEU]
The Treaty creates a new avenue for citizens from across the EU to have their voice heard. An initiative requires one million signatures (0.2% of the EU’s population) and then the Commission will, if it is within its competence and in keeping with the treaties, draft legislation for consideration by the Council and the Parliament. The Commission can only draft legislation if the initiative is within the competence of the EU and is fully compatible with the treaties, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The legislation will then have to be passed by the ordinary legislative procedure in both the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament for it to become a directive.
9. Charter of Fundamental Rights becomes legally binding [Article 6, TEU]
For the first time all EU legislation will have to be legally compatible with a charter protecting the fundamental rights of EU citizens. The CFR will apply to all EU directives and national legislation which implements EU directives. It will not apply to legislation instigated by national legislatures i.e. all non-EU Irish Law. The CFR does not expand or create new areas of competencies for the EU. It only binds EU from enacting legislation which is contrary to the fundamental rights laid down.
10. Energy and the Environment become greater EU competencies [Article 4 & 194, TFEU]
Ireland has a minuscule amount of power and influence in these areas. The EU can provide better legislation and act more effectively for our benefit than we can on our own. Russia, Europe’s main gas supplier consistently takes advantage of the divided energy market, playing one country against another, cutting off supplies and effectively bullying individual states. Russia will have a much more difficult time if it faces a united EU energy policy, the EU will be the one dictating the terms. The treaty also affirms that combating climate change is a major objective of the Union, which was actually negotiated for by the Irish delegation.

Please have a read of the above. They're all completely factual reasons to vote yes, and the best ones I know of. Anything you need clarification on, feel free to ask around this forum.

Edit: I won't go into the the points you've put forward, since they're just campaign slogans, and not even particularly popular with Yes voters round here.

The QMV myth has also been debunked before.

One of the requirements of the double majority is that in order for a propostion to pass, both the population requirement of 65% and the requirement that 55% of member states be in favour must be met.

roosh

Daftendirekt wrote: »

This should really be a sticky by now.

Please have a read of the above. They're all completely factual reasons to vote yes, and the best ones I know of. Anything you need clarification on, feel free to ask around this forum.

[/indent]

cheers. Will give a read of it.

roosh

Daftendirekt wrote: »

This should really be a sticky by now.

Please have a read of the above. They're all completely factual reasons to vote yes, and the best ones I know of. Anything you need clarification on, feel free to ask around this forum.

Is this is together with our decreased voting rights? At least when we get little or no say in the running of the EU, they will be pretty efficient when pushing stuff through.

Daftendirekt

mangaroosh wrote: »

Is this is together with our decreased voting rights? At least when we get little or no say in the running of the EU, they will be pretty efficient when pushing stuff through.

This has also been debunked before.

See the edit to my above post.

Also, the Council doesn't work on a voting system, or a veto system. It works on negotiation and compromise. So even if our voting weight was being decreased (and it isn't), the lost goodwill would be more injurious to Ireland than the reduced voting weight.

roosh

Indeed, I could use some clarification on a few things, where from the above will there be increased employment, will we have a "strong voice in Europe", will that lead to economic recovery?

roosh

Daftendirekt wrote: »

This should really be a sticky by now.

Please have a read of the above. They're all completely factual reasons to vote yes, and the best ones I know of. Anything you need clarification on, feel free to ask around this forum.

Edit: I won't go into the the points you've put forward, since they're just campaign slogans, and not even particularly popular with Yes voters round here.

The QMV myth has also been debunked before.

One of the requirements of the double majority is that in order for a propostion to pass, both the population requirement of 65% and the requirement that 55% of member states be in favour must be met.

by the way, I do appreciate the information.

Daftendirekt

mangaroosh wrote: »

Indeed, I could use some clarification on a few things, where from the above will there be increased employment, will we have a "strong voice in Europe", will that lead to economic recovery?

Increased employment - Nothing in the treaty will magically generate employment. This is waffle. Some people will argue that the common energy policy will be useful in job creation. Personally, I'm not so sure. I do however, believe that a No to Lisbon won't do us any favours in this regard.

Strong voice in Europe - This is a more arguable point. The rest of the member states want the institutional changes proposed in Lisbon, and they want Ireland to be on board too, since we helped negotiate this treaty. A Yes vote will show we're all on the same wavelength.

Note that I don't think a No vote with good reason will harm Ireland, since the other member states could address our concerns and help us draft a treaty we're happy with.

On the other hand, a No vote because other member states aren't having referenda, or because we don't like FF in government, or because the treaty is too complex won't put us in this position, because we won't be sending out any clear message about why we're opposed to the treaty. The other member states won't be able to address our concerns, and so will be hesitant to enter into the process of drafting up a new treaty with us, since they wouldn't be able to count on our ratification.

Daftendirekt

mangaroosh wrote: »

by the way, I do appreciate the information.

No prob, good to know I can be some help (even even I did just link to someone else's post).

roosh

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Increased employment - Nothing in the treaty will magically generate employment. This is waffle. Some people will argue that the common energy policy will be useful in job creation. Personally, I'm not so sure. I do however, believe that a No to Lisbon won't do us any favours in this regard.

Strong voice in Europe - This is a more arguable point. The rest of the member states want the institutional changes proposed in Lisbon, and they want Ireland to be on board too, since we helped negotiate this treaty. A Yes vote will show we're all on the same wavelength.

Note that I don't think a No vote with good reason will harm Ireland, since the other member states could address our concerns and help us draft a treaty we're happy with.

On the other hand, a No vote because other member states aren't having referenda, or because we don't like FF in government, or because the treaty is too complex won't put us in this position, because we won't be sending out any clear message about why we're opposed to the treaty. The other member states won't be able to address our concerns, and so will be hesitant to enter into the process of drafting up a new treaty with us, since they wouldn't be able to count on our ratification.

So with regard to employment, the effects of Lisbon are pretty much unknown? Am I right in saying that.

With regard to the strong voice in Europe, a No vote won't necessarily harm us. Is it equally likely to strengthen our voice because other member states will want us onside, and won't want us to be a "fly in the ointment", as it is to harm it through negative goodwill?

To be honest, I am not basing my vote on who is in government, who I like or anything. I'm purely basing it on whether or not I think its a good idea to vote in these changes when I, and certainly others don't know enough about them. As it stands, I have yet to see any overwhelmingly positive reasons to vote yes, and seeing as this is a pretty big deal, I think the reasons would have to be pretty overwhelming.

I find it funny that one of the things that Lisbon hopes to achieve is to be nearer to the people of Europe, yet in seeking ratification this could be furhter from the truth, even in those countries where a referendum was allowed.

Just reading the white paper, and I'm only just started [and will leave it until tomorrow to finish], it reads like some of the fallacious reasoning we have been given to vote Yes. Namely, Ireland has prospered under Europe, therefore the Lisbon Treaty is good. This of course might change as I go through it, but first impressions are that I am being molly coddled into believing it is right.

Daftendirekt

mangaroosh wrote: »

So with regard to employment, the effects of Lisbon are pretty much unknown? Am I right in saying that.

I might be wrong, but I'd say so. In fact, I'd go as far as to say whatever effect it could have, would be pretty negligible.

The reason I don't think a No vote would help, is simply that since Ireland is so dependent on foreign investment in our economy, it's important for us to remain as a gateway to the Common Market, and if the other members take our 'No to Lisbon' as a 'No to Europe' this position might be jeopardised.

With regard to the strong voice in Europe, a No vote won't necessarily harm us. Is it equally likely to strengthen our voice because other member states will want us onside, and won't want us to be a "fly in the ointment", as it is to harm it through negative goodwill?

Not sure what you mean here?

To be honest, I am not basing my vote on who is in government, who I like or anything. I'm purely basing it on whether or not I think its a good idea to vote in these changes when I, and certainly others don't know enough about them. As it stands, I have yet to see any overwhelmingly positive reasons to vote yes, and seeing as this is a pretty big deal, I think the reasons would have to be pretty overwhelming.

This is why it's so difficult for Yes voters to persuade people.

It's understandable why, with all the talk about Lisbon, you'd expect there to be some hugely significant advantages to voting Yes, or some hugely significant disadvantages.

In reality, if your looking for either I can guarantee you'll be pretty disappointed.

There's one very simple reason that Lisbon is necessary, and it's so utterly mundane, that it really isn't all that surprising that we haven't seen a proper Yes campaign. Ready? This really isn't going to impress you

:

At present the EU is operating under a system intended for around 15 members, when at the moment, it actually has 27.

That's it in a nutshell. That's what all the fuss is about.

So why should we care?

Because this is what causes people to say the EU suffers from excessive bureaucracy, a lack of transparency and a democratic deficit. Lisbon is an attempt to address these problems (not worsen them as some would have you believe). And this is beneficial to the people of EU because it results in a more decentralised decision making process. The national parliaments gain a greater role in EU decision making, the people can propose legislation to the Commission, and the directly elected European Parliament gains greater oversight over the workings of the EU.

Sure, these aren't particularly dramatic changes, and realistically, they won't have much effect on our day to day lives. But it's a step in the right direction for the EU.

And just to be clear, I would never advocate a Yes vote just to avoid isolating ourselves in Europe. If there's something so fundamentally nasty in the Treaty that you couldn't in all good conscience vote in favour of it, then the only moral thing for you to do would be to vote No.

But after devoting so much time to researching Lisbon since the last referendum, I haven't found anything to set any alarm bells ringing. And it's also very telling that groups like Cóir have to make stuff up about our minimum wage and stance on abortion being threatened. Surely, if there was something so bad in Lisbon, they'd be able to quote from the text to support their points?

And one last point, since I'm just rambling now (getting sleepy here).

It's important to bear in mind who the EU actually are, and their track record. Have the EU ever shown themselves to be anything other than a generally benevolent group of states, working for their mutual benefit? Even if you don't find anything in the Treaty that strikes you as being a brilliant step forward for Ireland, do you really see anything in it that could be seen as a step back?

Drumpot

Im a floater voter . .

I really am . .

I dont like the way either sides are making their arguements . .

Very dissapointed with the Ganley v O'Leary debate . I was expecting fireworks .

I am usually a pragmatic person and like to believe I will go with what makes sense. I am not anti FF, I just have no confidence in the electorate (which shows my loyalty lie nowhere). . If anything, popular opinion concerns me , as usually its canvassed opinion. .

I dont like being scared into voting yes, although I do have a decent understaning of the economic ramifications of this. There doesnt need to be anything in the treaty mentioning how EU countries will react to our potential "no" vote, but I do understand the political implications of how that might affect ireland moving forward and how we might get aid in the future. .

I dont care what the "no" vote think, it may very well have a serious negative effect on our economic stability.

However . .

I dont believe that fear is a reason to vote yes . . . And this is why I am torn. . I understand that this treaty is more administrive then anything else, but I just worry, that while we have already agreed to go down this road, we are really voting away our independence more and more with each treaty.

I mean, the ECB are bailing us out of our crisis and I seriously believe (as the government pretty much awknowledge this) that the EU is very prominent in our governments "recovery package" . .

Im actually neither decided on yes or no . . I would like to believe I am an above average educated person on this issue and would like to hear RELEVANT views on this treaty. . Not simply possibility's or profitability of the outcome of certain votes . . Can anybody honestly assess this treaty in its true form ???

Can anybody give an HONEST assessment of how this treaty will affect us as a nation . . I really dont trust either side . . and feel misinformed . .

Sam Vimes

mangaroosh wrote: »

Is this is together with our decreased voting rights? At least when we get little or no say in the running of the EU, they will be pretty efficient when pushing stuff through.

They said after Maastricht we'd have no say, they said after Nice we'd have no say, they've been saying since 1973 that we'd have no say. It has yet to happen because the EU reaches consensus through negotiation and compromise. Whether your voting share is 2% or 0.8% makes very little difference, especially when the other requirement of double majority voting gives us the same voting weight as everyone else. The EU is not out to force horrendous crippling changes on Ireland that will somehow be good enough for the others that at least 15 countries will vote for it

And remember that the important things are still decideded unanimously

RedPlanet

Sam Vimes wrote: »

They said after Maastricht we'd have no say, they said after Nice we'd have no say, they've been saying since 1973 that we'd have no say.

Rubbish, nobody said we'd have "no say" after Maastricht and Nice. Can you provide evidence of this claim?

RedPlanet

Drumpot wrote: »

I dont like being scared into voting yes, although I do have a decent understaning of the economic ramifications of this. There doesnt need to be anything in the treaty mentioning how EU countries will react to our potential "no" vote, but I do understand the political implications of how that might affect ireland moving forward and how we might get aid in the future.

If the EU seeks to punish us in anyway, it will only damage their own credibilty among the people of europe.

Drumpot wrote: »

I dont believe that fear is a reason to vote yes . . . And this is why I am torn. . I understand that this treaty is more administrive then anything else, but I just worry, that while we have already agreed to go down this road, we are really voting away our independence more and more with each treaty.

Agree 100%. The heart of this treaty seems to be a federalist europe, since i am not interested in that prospect, it's a good enough reason to vote no.
Personally i believe if the citizens of other EU countries actually held a referenda, they too would vote no. In effect we are also voting for them since their own constitutions don't provide them the same opportunity.

Drumpot wrote: »

Can anybody give an HONEST assessment of how this treaty will affect us as a nation . . I really dont trust either side . . and feel misinformed . .

Be warned, you will NOT get an unbiased assessment here. Even the moderators of this forum advocate a yes vote.

Sam Vimes

RedPlanet wrote: »

Rubbish, nobody said we'd have "no say" after Maastricht and Nice. Can you provide evidence of this claim?

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_ZKepX8VopRQ/SkqHGwCTAAI/AAAAAAAAAc8/EMzgh3Rs0bg/s800/mastr2.jpg

You may also remember the posters from Nice with the lovely slogan "You will lose power, money, freedom".

They also had "don't give Europe total control". It was Coir actually, the same people who now bring you €1.84 minimum wage and €200 billion lost in fisheries (it's actually €8 billion including Irish catches)
http://www.youthdefence.ie/history--2001/

You might notice a few of the other old favourites from this referendum there too

RedPlanet wrote: »

If the EU seeks to punish us in anyway, it will only damage their own credibilty among the people of europe.

Nobody's talking about the EU punishing us, they're talking about businesses choosing to invest in other EU countries because the Irish don't seem to want the same things as the rest of Europe and may not be fully involved going into the future. It's not that we'll be kicked out but voting no to three treaties sends a message that the Irish people aren't happy with Europe and may start to pull away themselves.

RedPlanet wrote: »

Agree 100%. The heart of this treaty seems to be a federalist europe, since i am not interested in that prospect, it's a good enough reason to vote no.

It's actually very specifically not. The constitution was too close to a federalist Europe which is why it was voted down by the French and the Dutch. All the state-like references were removed among a few other things and a few things were added at their request. But you won't hear that from the people who keep saying it's the constitution dressed up.

RedPlanet wrote: »

Personally i believe if the citizens of other EU countries actually held a referenda, they too would vote no. In effect we are also voting for them since their own constitutions don't provide them the same opportunity.

No, we're not. Those countries have representative democracies and their governments decide things for them every day, just as ours does. We happen to have had a court case in the 80's that means that our law requires a referendum on EU treaties. They have no such clause and so this is one of the multitude of things that their governments decide for them.

I think you might be right that it would be voted down but not because the treaty is bad, because the same thing would happen in those countries as happened here. All the extremists, nut jobs and devious bastards would come out of the woodwork and terrify people into voting it down through a determined campaign of lies. It happened here last time and it might just happen again. I don't think this treaty should be put to a referendum because the average Joe doesn't have the time, the inclination or the expertise to make an informed choice. Significant numbers of people in this country will make their decision on the posters alone and that's not a way to run a democracy. We vote people in so they can get expert opinions and make informed choices. The government makes decisions every day that will have ramifications a hundred times greater than those of the Lisbon treaty because that's what we vote them in to do.

Sam Vimes

RedPlanet wrote: »

Be warned, you will NOT get an unbiased assessment here. Even the moderators of this forum advocate a yes vote.

I wouldn't consider myself yes biased, I consider myself truth biased. When I first learned of this referendum I was undecided right up to the end. I wrestled over the vote right up until I marked the X. But coming up to the referendum I found myself appearing to be on the yes side because I kept correcting misconceptions from people on the no side. Over and over again I kept hearing the same things that weren't true. Every now and then a yes advocate would say something that was wrong but when they were corrected they'd apologise and never say it again but the no voters would hold onto their misconceptions like precious jewels, refusing to drop them in the face of overwhelming evidence. I became a yes voter by default.

Any time someone gives the facts about the treaty they're accused of bias. The two most ridiculous ones I've heard are the referendum commission and the polling cards. The referendum commission aren't biased, they just don't give the no side's lies and someone actually suggested that the information that came with the polling card which showed the proposed amendment to our constitution was biased because so many people believe all this mad crap is going to happen to our constitution if we vote yes and when this guy read the amendment and didn't see any of those things, he came to the conclusion it was biased. God forbid he ever consider that he might have been wrong :rolleyes:

roosh

Daftendirekt wrote: »

This has also been debunked before.

See the edit to my above post.

Also, the Council doesn't work on a voting system, or a veto system. It works on negotiation and compromise. So even if our voting weight was being decreased (and it isn't), the lost goodwill would be more injurious to Ireland than the reduced voting weight.

The little booklet seems to suggest that the Council of Ministers works exactly on a voting system. In fact it is in the council that the new QMV voting rights would occur.

The reason, I would suggest, that it currently works on negotiation and compromise, is because of the weighted voting, and for exactly the reason we see here, to try and prevent countries such as Ireland veto-ing treaties like Lisbon. If we vote yes Lisbon in, we will have less power to veto legislation that directly effects us such as treaties like Lisbon - this is according to the supposedly indedendent referendum commission report. This means there will be less need for negotiation and compromise with countries like us, because the larger countries will not have to worry about us getting in the way.

It is for this reason that I said that we could find ourselves in a situation, where either we see alliances being formed between the smaller countries, in order to have more say in Europe, or we'll have the bigger countries looking to form alliances with the smaller ones, and the smaller ones will have to make do with having a bone thrown to them every now and again, to keep them onside.

Lisbon does weaken our say in Europe, because it weakes our voting right in the Council of Ministers, who make final decisions on Legislation, either alone or in co-decision with the European parliament, where Ireland already has significantly fewer MEPs than the larger countries. Lisbon will weaken our say in Europe so that we will find ourselves having to go along with what is decided by the larger states. This is a logical conclusion based on the proposed changes to our voting rights in the Council of Ministers

roosh

Daftendirekt wrote: »

I might be wrong, but I'd say so. In fact, I'd go as far as to say whatever effect it could have, would be pretty negligible.

The reason I don't think a No vote would help, is simply that since Ireland is so dependent on foreign investment in our economy, it's important for us to remain as a gateway to the Common Market, and if the other member take our 'No to Lisbon' as a 'No to Europe' this position might be jeopardised.

Ok, but there is no real basis for this. Lisbon does absolutley nothing to affect Irelands access to the common market, we will be as much a gateway to the common market before as we will be afterwards. The difference will be, that we actually do have less of a say when it comes to things like legislation, which could directly affect our role in the common market. The new proposed QMV voting system does actually weaken our voting rights, in the

At present, our voting rights are such that there is need for discussion and compromise when it comes to legislation, otherwise it is likely that legislation that is not favourable to a particular country may be vetoed. Under Lisbon this will not be the case. Due to the change in QMV, which is how the Council of Ministers will work under Lisbon, the smaller states, such as Ireland, will have a much smaller vote than we currently do, therefore if new Legislation is proposed in the future, that is less favourable to Ireland - much like Lisbon is, as it weakens our say - we will not be able to veto it as easily. In fact, in order to veto such a law, we would need to get at leat 3 other member states on board.

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Not sure what you mean here?

What I was getting at, is the fact that at the moment, the way the council of ministers works, is that Ireland has a bigger voting weight than is relative to its population, that is the reason for the discussion and compromise manner in which the council currently operates. This is the reason Ireland has the opportunity to treaties such as Lisbon. For this reason it is important, that not only are we consulted more in the development of legislation, but that it is favourable to us, otherwise there would be a situation as there is now, where we would be too ready to veto. Under Lisbon the need to consult us and make the legilsation and treaties favourable to us, is lessened, because they can be passed more easily without countries like us vetoing decisions.

Now, I know Europe isn't out to screw us or anything, but there are certain Irish policies that are not favourable to the rest of Europe. While Lisbon doesn't afffect this itself, the way that Lisbon structures the Council of Ministers, allows for future voting on this issue, where we will have a weaker vote.

Daftendirekt wrote: »

This is why it's so difficult for Yes voters to persuade people.

It's understandable why, with all the talk about Lisbon, you'd expect there to be hugely significant advantages to voting for it, or some hugely significant disadvantages.

In reality, if your looking for this I can guarantee you'll be pretty disappointed.

There's one very simple reason that Lisbon is necessary, and it's so utterly mundane, that it really isn't all that surprising that we haven't seen a proper Yes campaign. Ready? This really isn't going to impress you :

At present the EU is operating under a system intended for around 15 members, when at the moment, it actually has 27.

It's difficult to persuage people because there is no overwhelming reason to vote Yes? That means that there is no reason as such to vote Yes when all things are considered. 1) We will have an EU that will supposedly run more efficiently, 2) We will have less of a say in how its run, 3) We will have less power to Veto certain decisions

While the No campaign may not exactly be overwhelming either, the facts show that No is probably more favourable. Don't get me wrong, I want a more efficient Europe too, but I beleive that there are certain decisions that would be suitable to the changes proposed by Lisbon, but not all of them. For this reason I don't think that Lisbon is the best possible solution.

Daftendirekt wrote: »

That's it in a nutshell. That's what all the fuss is about.

Sadly, this has been sadly absent from either campaign. If we vote Yes it is not only a vote for the Lisbon treaty, it is a vote in favour of shoddy politics, and sends a clear message to our political leaders and the rest of Europe, that our concerns don't need to be taken seriously. Simply throw out a load of propoganda and empty rhetoric and we'll tow the line. Is this really how we want to proceed from here?

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Because this is what causes people to say the EU suffers from excessive bureaucracy, a lack of transparency and a democratic deficit. Lisbon is an attempt to address these problems (not worsen them as some would have you believe). And this is beneficial to the people of EU because it results in a more decentralised decision making process. The national parliaments gain a greater role in EU decision making, the people can propose legislation to the Commission, and the directly elected European Parliament gains greater oversight over the workings of the EU.

It invokes Irony of shakespearean proportions that Lisbon is supposed to be about transparency, openeness and bringing the EU closer to the people, when the attempt to ratify it has been anything but that. There has been no openess, all we have heard from our heads of Government, and all the other political parties, is empty rhetoric, logical fallacies and scaremongering. Granted we have heard this from the No campaign too, bu those in the No campaign won't be running the country. Lisbon has failed to do what it has set out to do, ever before it has been ratified. This is not a reason to ratifiy it, it is further reason to veto it.

Sure, these aren't particularly dramatic changes, and realistically, they won't have much effect on our day to day lives. But it's a step in the right direction for the EU.

Daftendirekt wrote: »

And just to be clear, I would never advocate a Yes vote just to avoid isolating ourselves in Europe. If there's something so fundamentally nasty in the Treaty that you couldn't in all good conscience vote in favour of it, then the only moral thing for you to do would be to vote No.

The fact that our voting rights in the Council of Ministers will be seriously reduced is not necessarily sinister, but major cause to vote against it. It is in effect voting to weaken our stance.

Also, we have to look at the furhter ramification of voting yes. As I have repeatedly [perhaps too much so] stated, the Yes campaign, which is the one being backed by all the major political parties in this country i.e. those people that will be running our country, is based solelely on empty rhetoric, logical fallacies and scaremongering. If we vote yes, we send a clear message to those people that this is an acceptable manner in which to get us to vote in future. This has nothing to do with the incumbent government or indeed opposition parties, it applies to everyone, across the board. If you are satisfied with this kind of future politics, then by all means vote Yes. This is one of the major ways in which Lisbon will affect this country - apart from weakening our voting rights in the council of ministers.

Daftendirekt wrote: »

But after devoting so much time to researching Lisbon since the last referendum, I haven't found anything to set any alarm bells ringing. And it's also very telling that groups like Cóir have to make stuff up about our minimum wage and stance on abortion being threatened. Surely, if there was something so bad in Lisbon, they'd be able to quote from the text to support their points?

I think it is more telling that the major political parties in this country have done the same thing. Coir won't be running the country after the next election, one of [or a coalition of] those parties that have adopted the same shoddy approach as the No campaign will. Voting Yes shows that it is alright.

Also, if there were any real reason to vote Yes, then surely the Yes campaign would have pushed this without having to resort to lies and rhetoric,

And one last point, since I'm just rambling now (getting sleepy here).

Daftendirekt wrote: »

It's important to bear in mind who the EU actually are, and their track record. Have the EU ever shown themselves to be anything other than a generally benevolent group of states, working for their mutual benefit? Even if you don't find anything in the Treaty that strikes you as being a brilliant step forward for Ireland, do you really see anything in it that could be seen as a step back?

This is absolutely no reason to vote Yes, surely it is a reason to maintain the status quo, or at least proceed with the already scheduled changes. If it will not be a step forward or indeed a step back then why vote yes? Yes changes things, and is a step back because of our reduced voting rights in the council of ministers, while No keeps things as they are.

We have benefitted hugely from Europe, but we have done so according to the rules of the EU, and this is not a valid reason to vote Yes on Lisbon. Lisbon should be evaluated for what it is, and the effect it will have on us, not out of some sense of obligation or fear we have to europe. Lets remind ourselves that we are in the current economic climate under Europe also,a nd that Lisbon was drafted before the economic downturn, not in response to it. Granted the EU may be more efficient, but it is a fact that we will have less of a voting right in the council of ministers. Therefore, there is a real concern, that as we attempt to pull out of this economic hole, that certain policies will be foisted upon us because they are more favourable to the larger countries.

Lisbon does weaken our voting rights in the Council of Ministers, which has the final say on legislation. In order to veto certain laws, we would need to get at least 3 other nations onside.

The Yes campaign is being pushed by all the major political parties in this country and is being done so on the basis of empty rhetoric, logical fallacies and scaremongering. Voting Yes would send out a clear signal that this is accpetable politics - it is not.

The purpose of Lisbon is to improve efficiency, make Europe more transparent and bring the people of Europe closer to the workings of the EU. The attempt to ratify Lisbon has been the complete opposite. Many countries have not even had referenda, this is our second one, after voting no the first time, there has been no real attempt at an open debate of the issues, the only transparecny that has been involved is the transparency of our political leaders to hoodwink us into voting yes.

The only reason to vote Yes appears to be a more efficient and more open EU, with a weaker voting right, and a serious lack of openness and transparency.

roosh

Drumpot wrote: »

Can anybody give an HONEST assessment of how this treaty will affect us as a nation . . I really dont trust either side . . and feel misinformed . .

I would have to agree with that, and that is one of the main reasons that I am going to vote No, because every single one of the major political parties in this country feel that this is an acceptible approach to politics. Voting Yes vindicates this and sends the clear message that "Yes, this is a perfectly acceptible means of presenting important issues to us in the future"

Drumpot

mangaroosh wrote: »

I would have to agree with that, and that is one of the main reasons that I am going to vote No, because every single one of the major political parties in this country feel that this is an acceptible approach to politics. Voting Yes vindicates this and sends the clear message that "Yes, this is a perfectly acceptible means of presenting important issues to us in the future"

Im surprising myself by swinging this way aswell (the no way) . .

I believe I'm informed on this treaty, but just dont see the advantages of a yes . .

meglome

Drumpot wrote: »

Im surprising myself by swinging this way aswell (the no way) . .

I believe I'm informed on this treaty, but just dont see the advantages of a yes . .

No offence to some of you guys but you came across as suspicious of the EU from the get go. It's almost like you're looking for fault. The EU's actions towards Ireland have always been honourable as far as I can see. But suddenly a load of people are making them out to be North Korea.

And mangaroosh I don't see how on the one hand voting Yes can create a more efficient and more open EU and then one other hand make it less open and transparent. They would seem to be opposite positions. Lisbon does make the EU more efficient, open and transparent. All of which are needed and all of which are good things, once we Vote Yes. I'm willing to bet 100 euro with anyone that the voting weight change will make no difference as that's not how the EU works.

Drumpot

meglome wrote: »

No offence to some of you guys but you came across as suspicious of the EU from the get go. It's almost like you're looking for fault. The EU's actions towards Ireland have always been honourable as far as I can see. But suddenly a load of people are making them out to be North Korea.

And mangaroosh I don't see how on the one hand voting Yes can create a more efficient and more open EU and then one other hand make it less open and transparent. They would seem to be opposite positions. Lisbon does make the EU more efficient, open and transparent. All of which are needed and all of which are good things, once we Vote Yes. I'm willing to bet 100 euro with anyone that the voting weight change will make no difference as that's not how the EU works.

With all due respect, putting your head in the sand and accepting that because they were honorable in the past as a reason why we should trust them now is the weakest argument for voting yes . . The Germans, arguably the most pragmatic of nations, had no reason to believe that Hitler would end up as damaging as he was, but fear and desperation led them to vote in his party . . I believe things are differant nowadays, but we are fearful of the consequences of a "no" vote and desperate to improve our economic stability, which is simply a concern that a "yes" is simply trying to fullfill a CURRENT feeling as opposed to objectively agreeing to the principles of this treaty.

This is an extreme example and I dont assume that the EU is similar, but you need to ask questions of everything thats put on front of you and to accept that "ah sure theyve been honest up to now" is completely idiotic . The reason our country is in this mess is because we accepted EVERYTHING that was put on front of us without questioning those in power. .

Im not saying I simply don't trust the EU. . I'm saying there is very little in the treaty that makes me feel a yes vote would be beneficial to our country . . . One of the main arguements for the yes is that we may not be the centrepiece of european commercialism if we vote no (and that they will go on without us). I accept this as a strong possibility, but it is a fear inducing argument which always worries me ..

Im not a pro "no" campaigner . . I just like to question what I am voting on and while this treaty isnt meant to be "sexy" (its mainly an administrative tool), it simply does not appear to add any positive points to our standing in europe. At the end of the day, we have to vote for ourselves (as nobody else will) . .

Sam Vimes

Drumpot wrote: »

One of the main arguements for the yes is that we may not be the centrepiece of european commercialism if we vote no (and that they will go on without us). I accept this as a strong possibility, but it is a fear inducing argument which always worries me ..

I agree. Look here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61327732&postcount=1

roosh

meglome wrote: »

No offence to some of you guys but you came across as suspicious of the EU from the get go. It's almost like you're looking for fault. The EU's actions towards Ireland have always been honourable as far as I can see. But suddenly a load of people are making them out to be North Korea.

And mangaroosh I don't see how on the one hand voting Yes can create a more efficient and more open EU and then one other hand make it less open and transparent. They would seem to be opposite positions. Lisbon does make the EU more efficient, open and transparent. All of which are needed and all of which are good things, once we Vote Yes. I'm willing to bet 100 euro with anyone that the voting weight change will make no difference as that's not how the EU works.

I am far from a Euroskeptic, and indeed am usually very pro-european, but that does not mean I am going to vote in favour of everything that is churned out by the EU. What I will do is try and evaluate things on their merits, not out of some misguided sense of loyalty or indeed fear.

The thing is, it is claimed that voting Yes will make it more efficient and more open and more honest. The fact that the referendum has shown the exact opposite, makes me seriously question this proposition. Lisbon is already tainted with a lack of openess, honesty and transparency, so I see no reason why ratifiying this will change things, when it will be the same people running the show. A policy and its principles are only as good as the people implementing it.

Tied up in all of this is the fact that all the major political parties in this country, from whom the next irish government will be chosen, all see fit to try and fob us off with absolute and utter bull***, to try and get us to vote in favour of this. They try and claim that we will lose face if we bote No, but this is no reason to vote Yes, especially when the only people that will lose face is the politicians. We have not been fobbed off by the political parties in this country with regard to this, as have the majority of other countries. The only way we can say that this is not acceptible is by voting No. A Yes vote says that rhetoric and lies are a perfectly acceptible means of informing us on issues. I for one, do not accept this.

Also, an equally likely propostion that alliances could be formed within Europe. Anyone who believes that the EU is a group of countries pulling together to get the best outcome for everyone is again sadly misguided. It is a collective of governments looking to secure the best interests of their own individual countries, and is fraught with self-interest, not least on our part.

roosh

Drumpot wrote: »

With all due respect, putting your head in the sand and accepting that because they were honorable in the past as a reason why we should trust them now is the weakest argument for voting yes . . The Germans, arguably the most pragmatic of nations, had no reason to believe that Hitler would end up as damaging as he was, but fear and desperation led them to vote in his party . . I believe things are differant nowadays, but we are fearful of the consequences of a "no" vote and desperate to improve our economic stability, which is simply a concern that a "yes" is simply trying to fullfill a CURRENT feeling as opposed to objectively agreeing to the principles of this treaty.

This is an extreme example and I dont assume that the EU is similar, but you need to ask questions of everything thats put on front of you and to accept that "ah sure theyve been honest up to now" is completely idiotic . The reason our country is in this mess is because we accepted EVERYTHING that was put on front of us without questioning those in power. .

Im not saying I simply don't trust the EU. . I'm saying there is very little in the treaty that makes me feel a yes vote would be beneficial to our country . . . One of the main arguements for the yes is that we may not be the centrepiece of european commercialism if we vote no (and that they will go on without us). I accept this as a strong possibility, but it is a fear inducing argument which always worries me ..

Im not a pro "no" campaigner . . I just like to question what I am voting on and while this treaty isnt meant to be "sexy" (its mainly an administrative tool), it simply does not appear to add any positive points to our standing in europe. At the end of the day, we have to vote for ourselves (as nobody else will) . .

well said. Just on the point of us not being the centrepiece of European commercialism. We are not there now and voting no won't change anything about the common market. The common market will remain unchanged, and indeed any attempts to change it will have to be passed by us anyway, so it is not possible for us to get left behind as some people fear.

The following documentary is worth a look. Check out the first one about Socrates:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/philosophy-guide-to-happiness/

roosh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I agree. Look here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61327732&postcount=1

Just a caveat: The White Paper is written by the Deprartment of Foreign affairs, part of the government who are campaigning for a yes vote.

Sam Vimes

mangaroosh wrote: »

Just a caveat: The White Paper is written by the Deprartment of Foreign affairs, part of the government who are campaigning for a yes vote.

What's your point? Are you suggesting that they're lying? Do you think that everyone who works in the department of foreign affairs is corrupt and didn't feel the need to speak out about a biased white paper? I'm sure many of us have relatives working there.

Scofflaw

The Treaty doesn't really change the position of Ireland in Europe - or indeed the position of any of the other nations.

Instead, it provides a very large change in the power of the citizen with respect to the EU and EU legislation.

1. the increase in codecision means that you have a much greater ability to stop or amend EU legislation through your MEP. The codecision changes are not the same as losing the veto, since in most cases the areas brought under codecision are already QMV areas.

2. the Charter of Fundamental Rights gives citizens the ability for the first time to challenge and have struck out EU legislation that infringes their stated rights. While the COFR is already currently in use as a 'guideline' for creating EU legislation, it cannot currently be used to oppose EU legislation.

3. the Subsidiarity 'orange/yellow card' system means that you have a greater ability to oppose EU legislation through the Oireachtas (Dáil and Seanad).

4. the Oireachtas also gains a greater right to be kept informed on EU legislation - and that right applies to the whole of both houses, not just the government, so the opposition and independents will be kept better informed - if they're doing their job, we will also be better informed.

5. the various additional transparency upgrades included in Lisbon, such as the requirement that the Council of Ministers debate and vote in public when deliberating on draft legislation (16.8 TEU), mean that we as citizens gain better oversight and thus control of our government in Europe.

6. the Citizens' Initiatives give ordinary people a way to put requests for legislation onto the Commission's agenda for the first time.

Overall, I think Lisbon has an excellent set of rebalancing provisions which go a good way to reducing the democratic deficit. That may not impress everyone, but it's the basis of my Yes vote - and something I look forward to being able to use, hopefully.

cordially,
Scofflaw

roosh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What's your point? Are you suggesting that they're lying? Do you think that everyone who works in the department of foreign affairs is corrupt and didn't feel the need to speak out about a biased white paper? I'm sure many of us have relatives working there.

No, what I am saying is that the White Paper has been produced by a department that is clearly in the Yes camp, and therefore the potential for bias is inherent. Indeed the opening points of the white paper seem to conrifm this bias by the fallacious argument that the Lisbon Treaty should be considered on anything other than its merits.

One of the first points that it makes, is that when considering Lisbon, we should remember how good we've had it becuase of the EU. This is a logical fallacy. How good we have had it under the EU has no bearing on the Lisbon Treaty as a piece of legislation and how it will impact us. The Lisbon Treaty should be considered on its merits.

I don't doubt that people have family working in the DFA, and that they have the potential not to be biased. I also have even less doubt that any publication from a Government Department, is going to be in line with party policy, especially something like this. Seeing as how the party policy on Lisbon is Vote Yes, it is reasonable, and indeed highly logical to assume, that a publication by a government department is going to be biased towards yes.

Again, this is borne out by reading the opening few points.

ei.sdraob

mangaroosh wrote: »

No, what I am saying is that the White Paper has been produced by a department that is clearly in the Yes camp, and therefore the potential for bias is inherent. Indeed the opening points of the white paper seem to conrifm this bias by the fallacious argument that the Lisbon Treaty should be considered on anything other than its merits.

One of the first points that it makes, is that when considering Lisbon, we should remember how good we've had it becuase of the EU. This is a logical fallacy. How good we have had it under the EU has no bearing on the Lisbon Treaty as a piece of legislation and how it will impact us. The Lisbon Treaty should be considered on its merits.

I don't doubt that people have family working in the DFA, and that they have the potential not to be biased. I also have even less doubt that any publication from a Government Department, is going to be in line with party policy, especially something like this. Seeing as how the party policy on Lisbon is Vote Yes, it is reasonable, and indeed highly logical to assume, that a publication by a government department is going to be biased towards yes.

Again, this is borne out by reading the opening few points.

if you want impartial info on Lisbon

see my sig so