Just to point out that under Lisbon the Council of Ministers would have to meet in public when discussing and adopting laws.
Lisbon defeated what happens next ?
- Thread starter nad
- Start date
Just to point out that under Lisbon the Council of Ministers would have to meet in public when discussing and adopting laws.
Or perhaps subconsciously I was referring to this site: http://www.surveylance.com/
Got in there before me.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,475
This is the incredible thing about the No campaign, I actually believed that shnaek was making some plausible point here. But no, it is just another barefaced populist misrepresentation. Thanks for the clarification Nem.
This is a lesson for the Yes campaign next time round - every time a No campaigner mentions abortion, prostitution, conscription, "behind closed doors", surveylance, taxation etc. etc. they should be immediately challenged and that goes for RTE interviewers as well, who gave the No campaign far too much leeway.
I'd just like to clarify that I have nothing to do with the NO campaign. Nor the YES campaign. I am simply seeking to analyse the reasons why people voted NO.
As power moves from local to the centre, the people must be certain that there are checks and balances which prevent abuse by all powerful bureaucracy. I amn't seeking represent anything. I am truely a European, for if work dries up in Ireland, or if I find Ireland doesn't meet my needs I will move to Germany, or France, or Italy - I have nothing but respect for Europe. Nationalism, like religion, can be highly contentious. I am not making a nationalistic arguement. I am arguing from the bottom up. Give us a vision for Europe. Something we can believe in. Something we can be proud of. Something we can trust.
And perhaps I am wrong in my arguments. I am open to that. I have been an open supporter of the European project all my life, but I would be lying if I didn't admit to feeling a disconnect with it of late. I don't know the reason for this. I am searching for that reason.
A 27 person committee. You think that will work in practice?
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,475
okay, shnaek, I think I understand your emotional "disconnect" and you appear not to have a No agenda, per se, and admit that some of your arguments may be incorrect.
But what is less understandable is when intellectuals like michaelm and starlite68 applaud your references to "behind closed doors", "ruling by fear" and "surveylance"
.
But what is less understandable is when intellectuals like michaelm and starlite68 applaud your references to "behind closed doors", "ruling by fear" and "surveylance"
.I must admit that I was waiting for the YES side to convince me to vote yes. All I got were posters of local councillors decorating the lamp posts, threats from Europe, and initially threats from the main political parties. Now, the NO side had plenty threats too. But I expect a more positive approach when I am being asked to vote for a treaty with far reaching implications for Ireland and where it is going.
My arguments are based on anecdotal evidence. I have not read the treaty. Have you read the treaty yourself? Or are you basing your support for Lisbon on trust?
Aw. I have been relegated from the position of intellectual to that of emotional! I think I need a hugBut what is less understandable is when intellectuals like michaelm and starlite68 applaud your references to "behind closed doors", "ruling by fear" and "surveylance"
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,475
I am pretty sure that if that decision was put to ref, we would have rejected it. Personally I think our leaders were a bit over Europhile here and it is now backfiring, the Irish people in general have not liked the influx of immigrants - and that is not racism.
Fairly harmless really, but see Purple's reply.
We neither have cuckoo clocks nor oil.
Seriously though, it is a good question. But do you think we would be better off outside the EU? I understand that the No campaign are substantially in favour of our continued membership. We are not guaranteed our low CT rate in any scenario. It is a concession already under attack. With this No vote we have lost all goodwill entitlement to it.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,475
No and Yes. But my main reason for voting Yes was that No would badly backfire on us, I never even considered it as a realistic option. What have we gained from this, the adulation of the British Independence Party? Yikes.
You want to hold on to 27 commissioners but you don't know how they operate?
starlite68
Registered User
- Messages
- 330
the rules of the game were decided upon and set out clearly by the EU themselvs...ie EVERY country must agree to ratify the treaty or it can NOT be passed...simple. but it seems that now because the result of the game dosent suit the EU...They a talking about giving the irish NO vote the two fingers! now that may seem ok to some...but you would have to say..if thats the way they can break their own rules and agreements..it dose not bode well for any agreements made in the future.
I can see you point but I think you are being unfair to a large amount of people who voted 'No'. You can't brand them all selfish and racist just because they might have doubts about the way the EU is going and have a different prespective to you. I know some very respectable people including a CEO of a multinational financial organisation who voted No and none of his reasons included abortion, war, immigration, state of the economy blah blah blah. I am sure some people did vote for these reasons but people in the Yes campaign need to quickly wake up that there are people out there with genuine concerns and they can't simply put it down to selfishness, ignorance or a protest vote on the state of the economy.
No and Yes. But my main reason for voting Yes was that No would badly backfire on us, I never even considered it as a realistic option. What have we gained from this, the adulation of the British Independence Party? Yikes.
I work for a European financial institution and I have had plenty of ordinary French and Italian people say well done to me. Haven't heard one negative comment. Not saying this survey is scientific in any way but it really does seem that the only people who care or are ****ed off are the politicians. Ordinary European people just don't seem to care about the vote or the EU in general.
Yes, every country has to ratify the treaty so if Ireland does not hold another referendum or if there was another No vote, the treaty would collapse. However there's nothing to stop the other 26 democratically elected governments (just in case we forget, we seem to have a big problem with this concept) from putting essentially the same compromise together under a new treaty title. Noel Whelan highlighted this possibility on last Monday's Questions and Answers. It could be called the Treaty of Paris or Prague, Helsinki wherever. This would be implemented under enhanced cooperation rules leaving Ireland behind in a second class membership position that would be a disaster for this country. We may as well leave the EU if it comes to that.
It is ridiculous to argue that one state can hold up the progress for everyone else. The EU has done everything to try and address the concerns of small states and treat them equally since its inception. No one wants it to come to this, but at some stage hard political realities must come into play. It will be a sad day for the EU if it happens but it seems to me the naysayers here are determined to bring it to a head and force this outcome.
You do understand the concept of representative democracy, right? You are aware that Irish elected representatives have signed a number of international conventions and treaties considered binding that were never put to referendum? I would have voted against signing the Kyoto agreement. Is it undemocratic that I didn't get a chance?
Blowing our goodwill in Europe like that was a staggeringly stupid move and one for which we will pay dearly. Will you be able to look people in the eye and tell them about your grand vision to rebuild a humanist Europe in which all races and creeds frolick together in perpetual harmony, if tens of thousands of people are faced with the prospect of telling their family they've lost their job in Dell/Intel/Microsoft?
So what was it we joined in 1973?
For one, neither Norway nor Switzerland built an economy based on stealing the corporation taxes of other countries in Europe. Also Norway has a lot of oil. Both countries enjoy free trade with the EU at the discretion of the EU member states. It's a privilege that could be withdrawn.
How can a high CT rate be forced upon us and through which mechanism if not by a EU federal government ? And how would they compensate us when the FDI dries up and the US companies move elsewhere ? Would they then have to also give us German standard health care... since they have (in this scenario) taken control of our taxes it seems only right that they should also take control of our services? Why not wait for this to happen and then they can pay for our Berlin style Metro system ?
I'm glad you've thought about this logically and are able to express your opinions so succintly. Why would the other EU countries need to actually change our tax rate? They can just negate the advantage by applying a countermanding tariff or taxing corporate profits in the country of sale rather than origin. This would make what we tax the few multinationals that would remain pretty much irrelevant.
Norway and Switzerland were always much wealthier than us, so never could see extra benefits from joining EEC/EU. They still have EFTA for free trade. Maybe we should just join that ?
Then we wouldn't be bound by any namby-pamby Charter of Fundamental Rights, Working-week regulations etc ...
Then we wouldn't be bound by any namby-pamby Charter of Fundamental Rights, Working-week regulations etc ...
Since we are wondering about other countries, why do countries such as Croatia want to join the EU, knowing they will have to take the Euro, and sign up to the Lisbon Treaty ?
Croatia is one of the wealthiest countries in Eastern Europe and ranks 29th out of 50 in the global Material Wealth Index ([broken link removed]) They also had to fight their way out of a different kind of Union.
Italy ranks 25th, not too far ahead.
To paraphrase a previous poster 'they <Croatia> are sh**ing themselves now in case they cannot join' the EU if Lisbon fails.
Croatia is one of the wealthiest countries in Eastern Europe and ranks 29th out of 50 in the global Material Wealth Index ([broken link removed]) They also had to fight their way out of a different kind of Union.
Italy ranks 25th, not too far ahead.
To paraphrase a previous poster 'they <Croatia> are sh**ing themselves now in case they cannot join' the EU if Lisbon fails.