I will be voting YES.
Practically every aspect of our ionvolvement with the EU over the years has been positive:
1. Huge income gains to farmers via the CAP
2. Boost to our human capital via the ESF.
3. Huge improvements to our infrastructure from the ERDF.
4. Huge gains to trade, from the single market.
5. Single currency is a success.
6. Environmental improvements encouraged or forced by the EU.
And many, many more.
Although it disturbs me greatly to find myself on the same side as lunatics like Sinn Fein and the Socialist Worker's Party, when I cannot find a convincing reason to vote "yes" for something, I vote "no".
* All states have equal right of representation on EU commission irrespective of their size. (10 out of every 15 years)
The Lisbon Treaty
* Nothing in the Treaty allowing the EU to:
Set our tax rates
Change our stance on neutrality (triple lock remains). Any change requires another referendum
Decide our citizenship laws
Make foreign policy decisions without unanimity
Change our abortion laws
Explain the 10 out of every 15 years please? Will there now be 27 commissioners, i.e. 1 from each member state?
Right now France is making undertomnes on tax harmonisation that could change our corporation tax rates & thus when pushed upwards will make Ireland lass favourable for foreign investment.
* Nothing in the Treaty allowing the EU to:
Set our tax rates
Change our stance on neutrality (triple lock remains). Any change requires another referendum
Decide our citizenship laws
Make foreign policy decisions without unanimity
Change our abortion laws
Reason enough to vote no.And if this turns out not to be the case, what happens then? Will it be like the time they abolished Duty Free, with a promise to Ireland that we would be exempt. We weren't. Nothing happened.
It's Nice all over again. If they get a no vote they will keep rerunning it under they get a yes.Am I correct in thinking that the document we're being given to read is an 'interpretation' of the Treaty and not the actual Treaty itself?
In which case it's open to legal challenge?
And we don't really know what we're being asked to vote on?
Am I correct in thinking that the document we're being given to read is an 'interpretation' of the Treaty and not the actual Treaty itself?
In which case it's open to legal challenge?
And we don't really know what we're being asked to vote on?
Good point. That’s why we elect representatives to look at these sorts of things for us.So our (Irish) 'interpretation' could be different from the French/Italian etc 'interpretation'.....so we don't really have a treaty at all?
How reasonable/democratic is it to ask people to vote on something that has been acknowledged by both sides to be unintelligible?
That is exactly the point. The real treaty is apparently unreadable. I haven't yet heard of anyone who has been able to read it. It refers to paragraphs in lots of other treaties, some of which couldn't be obtained by Vincent Browne when he went looking for them.
So we are being asked to vote on an interpretation, with no one responsible if that interpretation turns out to be wrong.
Explain?It’s also why referendums on these sort of issues are a bad idea.
ALL laws and treaties are written in technical, complicated language. Try reading the Taxes Acts
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?