The Lisbon vote

[GeneralZod]

Lisbon can't be summarised as a single easy to understand measure.

It does many things, which are listed in the pamphlets and on the many websites devoted to it.

Voting no on the basis of not being given a simple answer when one doesn't exist is unreasonable. Anyone intending to vote has the civic duty to inform themselves about the issues using the extensive material available and make a decision based on the issues. They shouldn't let spurious points influence their decision.

 

[rmelly]

Equally they shouldn't vote 'Yes' because they think the politicians know best etc.

 

[starlite68]

All countries have a vote. They elect their government and that government makes the decision. That's how representative democracy works. Referenda are not a suitable mechanism for deciding such complex matters. This is evident in how elements of the No side have presented utterly spurious reasons for voting against the treaty.

if the reasons are so utterly spurious ....then why is the no vote pulling ahead in the latest poll......obviously everyone dose not share your view!

 

[Purple]

if the reasons are so utterly spurious ....then why is the no vote pulling ahead in the latest poll......obviously everyone dose not share your view!

There are plenty of reasons to vote no but many of those presented by some in the the no camp have nothing to do with Lisbon.

 

[rmelly]

Sounds like you're coming around to voting no, Purple? Good on you.

 

[Madangan]

One of the problems the Yes camp have can be illustrated by looking at someone like me.

I am pro Europe generally speaking and I have no doubt that on balance Irelands membership of The EEC then EC now EU has been extremely extremely positive for the country as a whole our economy our social policies and all of us as Irish people.

I am a stereotypically middle class person university graduate professional with a decent income and a good life. I have no axe to grind. I am a centrist politically speaking,have voted Labour,FG, Green and on rare occasions FF.

The vast majority of those advocating a yes vote would have my respect if not necessarily my vote or absolute agreement. By contrast I think that the vast majority of those advocating a no vote are lunatics. I would cross the strret to avoid most of them,I intensely dislike Sinn Fein, most of Coir are mad or fanatics and as for the marxists the anarchists etc... they are just a waste of space.

I care not a whit whether we remain neutral and believe that neutrality is something to be decided upon on a case by case basis.

I believe that most of those on the No side have run disgraceful untruthful fear based campaigns.

So it should not take much to push someone like me over to the Yes side.

And yet, I have yet to hear any convincing reason for changing Bunreacht na hEireann to incorporate the Lisbon treaty. There may be many but I have not heard them.

I have heard ad nauseum that we , a little country on the edge of Europe, will lose our influence, that we punch above our weight but wont in future if we say no, that the rest will push on without us...the sky will fall in etc.. And yet France and the Netherlands did not suffer.

And either it is a Union where all countries are equal and have equal respect or else it is not. If it is they must respect our decision the way that Frances No vote was respected, if it is not then why oh why should we vote to make the Eu run more efficiently if this only increases its domination over us.

I am told to vote Yes and reassured that we will not lose power, not lose our independence on tax matters etc.. by people who proudly admit not to have read the Treaty! I am a solicitor and I can only imagine what a client of mine would say if I told him that the 100 page commercial lease he asked me to review was fine and he should sign it while laughingly admitting that I only read to page 75 cos it was too long.

If the Eu wants to be more efficient(and Im not sure that I want it to get more efficient given the volume and extent of legislation (by way of decisions directives regulations etc..) that it spews out each year) then it can first stop the ridiculous bilocation of the parliament between Brussels and strasbourg each month which costs millions each time and then it can move on to being totally transparent in its workings and its costs and expenditure which it refuses to do.

Then if EU want us to exercise our democratic vote it shoud release the Commision report on taxation which it is holding back until after our vote.

And in the interim can someone on the YES side please explain to me why Giscard D,Estaing, who was intrinsically involved in the EU constitution project, appears to believe that Lisbon is the Constitution in disguise and that we (and the French and the Dutch and the people of all other countries who looked like rejecting the Constitution such as the UK) will be fooled into ratifying the Constitution by the back door???

I voted Yes to the S.E.A Maastricht etc.. I want to be convinced to vote Yes again but as things stand I am veering towards No and at best towards abstaining.

 

[Caveat]

Pretty much where I am Madangan.

 

[GeneralZod]

One of the problems the Yes camp have can be illustrated by looking at someone like me.

Good post.

If you seriously believe that the EU is "dominating" us then you should be opposed to our continued EU membership in general. The question I'd ask is how does the Lisbon treaty extend this domination or does it actually make it less likely with it's measures increasing the powers of the EU parliament over legislation and the EU budget.

The "have you read every page of it" argument is misleading. The fairer question to ask the politicians advocating a yes vote is have they read the consolidated text of the EU treaties after they've been modified by Lisbon. If they read the whole Lisbon treaty they'd be far more likely to miss something than if they studied the consolidated text.

The moving of the EU Parliament between two locations is a waste of money but it isn't a reason to vote no to Lisbon. It can be dealt with later if the political will exists to do so. I'm sure it will happen as the power of the French is diminished in the enlarged Europe.

This isn't the EU constitution in disguise. It is the EU constitution with obvious bits associated with nation state sovereignty taken off. The history of the negotiation of the treaty is too well known to deny its origins.

Perhaps the key question is do EU governments share the vision of Arch Europeans like the out of touch Giscard D,Estaing to create a US of Europe. I think the answer is no as national sovereignty remains intact under Lisbon.

 

[michaelm]

Perhaps the key question is do EU governments share the vision of Arch Europeans like the out of touch Giscard D,Estaing to create a US of Europe.

I think the answer is yes but that the peoples of Europe do not share the vision. This is why all but Ireland are denying their people a say on the rehashed EU Constitution that is the Lisbon Treaty. A NO should be viewed in that light and as a wake-up call to the Political Classes. They should begin the process of handing back many competencies to National governments.

As FF, FG and Labour agree that the Charter of Fundamental Rights attached to the Lisbon Treaty is such a prize they should, following a NO to Lisbon, instead implement it under Irish law. That way, rather than have the ECJ foist a legally binding, unforeseen and undesirable interpretation on us, we can have the Irish courts interpret it. At least we would have the power to remedy any unforeseen and undesirable interpretation from an Irish court, this would not be possible in relation to a ECJ decision.

 

[Ceist Beag]

Good post.

If you seriously believe that the EU is "dominating" us then you should be opposed to our continued EU membership in general. ...

The "have you read every page of it" argument is misleading. ...

Completely agree. Madangan good post but seriously do you honestly expect everyone voting to read every page? I'm disappointed with the way the Yes campaign are putting forward their argument but I still believe myself that this is a good step forward - and no I haven't read the full document, nor have any intention of doing so!
My philosophy here is simple - first I read the consolidated points and was in favour based on that. Second I looked at all those in favour versus all those against and listened to their arguments just to see if I was missing something. I have heard nothing yet from the No camp to persuade me I have and also I have seen noone of authority in the no camp that I have any knowledge of or respect for. Anyone I would respect is in the Yes camp. So it's quite a no brainer for me.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Anyone I would respect is in the Yes camp. So it's quite a no brainer for me.

Snap. The whole responsible political, economic and social consensus is for "Yes" or more accurately that "No" will turn out a disaster for Ireland.

And yet the betting markets and opinion polls are pointing to a real possibility of a popular "No". There will of course be the usual platitudes of "we must respect the voice of the people" from a defeated "Yes" camp. To me a "No" vote would mean quite the opposite, we must never again respect the voice of the people, referendum style, on anything so complex as this.

 

[Bluebells]

We are not voting "on the Lisbon Treaty".
We are voting to allow or prevent an ammendment to our Constitution.

At present the EU cannot enforce legislation that is repugnant to our constitution. The Lisbon Treaty proposes that EU legislation be superior to Irish Constitutional Law. If we want this, we vote 'Yes', if not, we vote 'No'. What the actual legislation will be does not matter, the point is that whether we like it or not we won't be able to do anything about it.

Talk of Vetoes and Triple Locks does not impress me. Our representatives will be afraid to use our Veto, in case they upset the rest of Europe, like they are afraid of doing now.

We have a Veto in the WTO talks, but it took the IFA to threaten a No vote to make sure that the Veto would be used. How can we be sure that our Veto will be used in future?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

The Lisbon Treaty proposes that EU legislation be superior to Irish Constitutional Law.

I just knew there was a really good reason for voting for the Lisbon Treaty.

 

[Bluebells]

Whether the Constitution is good bad or indifferent is irrelevant. The point is, that it is the Irish Constitution. The Citizens of Ireland are the only ones who can change it's provisions if they feel they are outdated/unfair/discriminatory, and can do so at their leisure, and when the need arises.

Post Lisbon, the Irish people no longer have this right. Laws can be enacted and enforced which overide the Constitution.

I have no gripe against the EU, however I don't really see why we have to effectively scrap our Constitution in order for it continue functioning.

 

[GeneralZod]

Post Lisbon, the Irish people no longer have this right. Laws can be enacted and enforced which overide the Constitution.

I have no gripe against the EU, however I don't really see why we have to effectively scrap our Constitution in order for it continue functioning.

We are not scrapping the Irish Constitution. If we decide we no longer want to cooperate on agreed areas of common interest such as monetary policy we can hold another referendum dropping recognition of EU Law.

 

[cole]

There will of course be the usual platitudes of "we must respect the voice of the people" from a defeated "Yes" camp.

Like they did with the Nice referendum?

To me a "No" vote would mean quite the opposite, we must never again respect the voice of the people, referendum style, on anything so complex as this.

Why? Can the people not be trusted to make the right decision?

 

[diarmuidc]

Completely agree. Madangan good post but seriously do you honestly expect everyone voting to read every page?

On a related point , I think the "have you read the treaty" argument against the treaty is a total red herring.

In 1998 there was a referendum to amend the Irish constitution. This was passed with 94% YES. I wonder what percent read that amendment. (I'm guessing it was tiny, and BTW it was the Good Friday Agreement) People may be against or for the Lisbon, but whether one has read it or not I bet has no relation on ones decision.

What I can't believe is that , with pretty much every major organisation, political party or union FOR the treaty, more people are saying that they will vote against it than for. Scary.

 

[starlite68]

not really scary..its just that irish people dont like being told how we should vote,we are capable of making up our own minds. if everyone told you to jump off a cliff would you still think it was good idea?

 

[gnubbit]

Very well put Mandangan.

 

[television]

Lisbon can't be summarised as a single easy to understand measure.

It does many things, which are listed in the pamphlets and on the many websites devoted to it.

Voting no on the basis of not being given a simple answer when one doesn't exist is unreasonable. Anyone intending to vote has the civic duty to inform themselves about the issues using the extensive material available and make a decision based on the issues. They shouldn't let spurious points influence their decision.

Did a leaked document on how the government are going to promote a yes vote not suggest that the government plan was to not try to explain the details of the treaty but to just promote the benefits the EU to Ireland.

i was listening to Mary harney today in a debate with Joe Higgins. When Higgins tried to discuss the details of the treaty i.e points on various articles Harney responded by saying Higgins was confusing people.

The goverment does not want a full open frank debate of the merits of the treaty. And if there is a no vote the governments plan b will be another referendum in a year.

It is a fact that European beauracrats do not believe ordinary people are capable of understanding the complexity of the european project.

This is not about ordinary people informing themselves about the treaty.it is about the political establishment telling people without explaining that they should vote YES. Quite fairly and reasonably people are saying "if the goverment cannot explain this properly and if I cant understand it I am not voting yes" In my mind a resonable position to take.