how is it selfish? Should it be a fair deal for everyone EXCEPT us? You seem to think EVERYONE in Europe wants a yes vote? Just cos their governments agree... cos they didn't get a vote. Kann isn't Irish and is encouraging us to vote no. Do you really believe that all governments speak on behalf of their people? this is getting frustrating.
Of course, I am not assuming everyone is a Euro enthusiast and want closer union! The facts are though that citizens THROUGH their elected representatives in government are for closer integration with the Lisbon Treaty. Selfish is the interest of one nation contrasted to the other interests of the member states. Selfish means withholding the greater good for one particular need that benefits only one country/individual, etc. So it is selfish.
Whether you have trust in politicians, that's another issue.
Sure it's good for you... you're Italian... whatever way your country votes is worth 29 votes (I think you're one of the big ones?) Our vote is 7. Basically, your countrys voice is worth 4 times the voice of mine..
Yes, Italy is one of the big country and a founding member states. This is not the issue. The issue is fair representation. The veto is increasingly not in such a big union.
I see absolutely nothing selfish in what I'm trying to say here. I LIVE, work and breathe in Ireland... of course I'm going to put our immediate needs before any other country.
isn't this a contradiction? saying it's not selfish and then claiming you are going to put your country needs first? How is that not selfish from a European perspective?!
The treaty does NOT say Ireland will LOSE our neutrality... the government is trying to tell us that we will NOT... but the simple fact is that for NOW we will not, but any future decisions on that will be up to our government... that could be in a month, it could be in 10 years, it may never happen... but why should we give up our RIGHT to vote on it that we fought so hard to win?
You are assuming what's going to happen in the future with no basis in the past though. As I was saying to JordyWordy the ECJ responsibility to uphold EU treaties. Not the Irish government. So you have to extend the issue of trust/mistrust to bureacrats, judges etc etc.
I really don't see why you think I should just ignore that loophole and vote for the good of Europe? It makes no sense to me. Oh and it's not just about neutrality either. I actually think every country should put each amendment to the vote rather than their government deciding for them.
So you're claiming it would be better for individual citizens should vote on any single EU issue and do without the European parliament?
What's voters' participation in Ireland? trend are for more apathy in citizens.
'In addition, at least four Member States must be opposed to a decision in order for it to be blocked. This ensures that decisions cannot be blocked by just 3 of the larger Member States acting together.
If there are fewer than 4 Member States opposed to a decision then the qualified majority will be deemed to have been reached even if the population criterion is not met.'
Ok, so this is about qualified majority voting... not vetoes. In your earlier posts you mentioned the need for 4 vetoes.
c'mon, I'm not gonna vote for something just because to vote against it will derail it! I don't vote for things I don't agree with... it's why we HAVE a vote in this country, so we can choose what we want... not have central Europe choose FOR us, which will be how it is... France, Germany, Italy & UK will be running europe, how is that good for ANY of the rest of us?
No danger for the UK to be running Europe!!!
How is central Europe choosing for Ireland??? Ireland could still make voting coalition with other states if they agree on the issue. Otherwise, why would the rest of Europe go with what Ireland decides with vetos and referenda?
You see, how you can turn the argument??
Qualified majority voting provides a fairer system for ALL. Not just one country or a few. If you do not find other states that agree on a certain issue, well majority rules, and that's democracy.
ha, thats all fine & dandy BUT....
you didnt answer my question.
If you had the opportunity to vote on a Treaty which purports to guarantee a right, but doesnt explain how, and also erradicates that right from your national constitution, WOULD U VOTE FOR THAT?
put your money where your mouth is.
My assumption is based on having studied law, and knowing that nothing is guaranteed unless its in writing, and theres nothing express or specific about the terms of this treaty.
Alternatively, can you explain to me How the ECJ can uphold a right when there are no specific provisions for it to do so?
Because your question omits that in these circumstances the right will be guaranteed because of the mere existence of the ECJ. The ECJ will uphold that right because it will be inscribed in the treaty.
You say you've studied law. Then could you find me an example where the ECJ in its history have ruled against EU treaties and law.
If you cannot you're making a BIG assumption on your neutrality clause not being respected by the EU.
Conversely, how is the neutrality principle in the Irish constitution guaranteed?
Of course, I am not assuming everyone is a Euro enthusiast and want closer union! The facts are though that citizens THROUGH their elected representatives in government are for closer integration with the Lisbon Treaty. Selfish is the interest of one nation contrasted to the other interests of the member states. Selfish means withholding the greater good for one particular need that benefits only one country/individual, etc. So it is selfish.
Whether you have trust in politicians, that's another issue. .
Ok, well then I no longer care if it's selfish or not... although I do believe I'm doing everyone a favour... cos I said it's NOT just the issue of neutrality... EVERYTHING will be taken out of our hands. It's also not about trust... although I wouldn't trust an aquaintance with these issues... why should I trust a bunch of people I've never met and have nothing in common with my life?
Besides you keep suggesting that it's corruption in Irish politics that lead me to feel this way. Perhaps it is... but wasn't there also quite a few scandals in Italian politics? Corruption amongst politicians isn't unique to Ireland.... but better the devil you know, eh?
Yes, Italy is one of the big country and a founding member states. This is not the issue. The issue is fair representation. The veto is increasingly not in such a big union..
why is that suddenly not the issue? It is AN issue... obviously not THE issue but it's easy for YOU to say it's not the issue you're the one with the 29 votes.
sn't this a contradiction? saying it's not selfish and then claiming you are going to put your country needs first? How is that not selfish from a European perspective?!.
Selfish would be if I were doing it for my OWN needs... but no, I'm voting no for every Irish person and for every european person who wants to vote no but won't get the opportunity to do so. From a globalisation point of view, the situation they are trying to force on us basically scares the shit out of me.
You are assuming what's going to happen in the future with no basis in the past though. As I was saying to JordyWordy the ECJ responsibility to uphold EU treaties. Not the Irish government. So you have to extend the issue of trust/mistrust to bureacrats, judges etc etc..
The ECJ is still just run by people... people change... the world changes. We've seen America as a fantastic example of why we do not need to give politicians more power. they're doing the same thing to us that they've done on the americans... scare us into handing them the power and tell us it's all for the good of the poor starving eastern europeans.
So you're claiming it would be better for individual citizens should vote on any single EU issue and do without the European parliament?
What's voters' participation in Ireland? trend are for more apathy in citizens.
I'm suggesting that every country has the opportunity that we have... that they can choose for themselves!
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
What's at stake? That's all we hear is about how we don't actually understand what's at stake by patronising politicians, gimme a break... if we don't understand MAKE us understand... but there are two options on the ballot sheet... make us understand both! So far they've done neither.
Helen, why would you wait for politicians to provide you with the information? whichever side you'll hear will be biased anyway. Propaganda. You should read as much as possible then make your own mind and decision.
Isn't that a contradiction though? You don't trust your government and politicians but then you want them to provide you with the information about the issues?
How is central Europe choosing for Ireland??? Ireland could still make voting coalition with other states if they agree on the issue. Otherwise, why would the rest of Europe go with what Ireland decides with vetos and referenda?
You see, how you can turn the argument??
Qualified majority voting provides a fairer system for ALL. Not just one country or a few. If you do not find other states that agree on a certain issue, well majority rules, and that's democracy.
Hmm... yes, we've all seen from the eurovision how block voting is a GREAT advantage to western europe :rolleyes:
France, Germany, Italy and the UK... add Spain and Poland to that and that's almost 200 votes out of 255 needed... 6 countries out of the 27 control well over half of the ENTIRE votes :eek: that's just asking for all kinds of trouble!
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Because your question omits that in these circumstances the right will be guaranteed because of the mere existence of the ECJ. The ECJ will uphold that right because it will be inscribed in the treaty.
You say you've studied law. Then could you find me an example where the ECJ in its history have ruled against EU treaties and law.
If you cannot you're making a BIG assumption on your neutrality clause not being respected by the EU.
Conversely, how is the neutrality principle in the Irish constitution guaranteed?
You don't understand... it does not actually SAY in the treaty ANYWHERE that the Irish neutrality is protected. It says we can decide if, and when, a decision like that should need to be made. However what they don't tell us is that if we vote yes, it will be our politicians making the decision FOR us.
Irish neutrality is a BIG thing in our constitution and always has been!
Nobody's saying the ECJ will or would break any agreements in the treaty. They wouldn't have to cos there's very little if nothing MAKING them break anything
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Helen, why would you wait for politicians to provide you with the information? whichever side you'll hear will be biased anyway. Propaganda. You should read as much as possible then make your own mind and decision.
Isn't that a contradiction though? You don't trust your government and politicians but then you want them to provide you with the information about the issues?
oh no, I agree completely... what I'm saying is if THEY want us to vote yes... like they keep telling us we SHOULD, perhaps they should try telling the people WHY. That's why I was reading up on it, cos everyone's at a loss as to what the hell we're actually voting FOR. I haven't seen any leaflets... not everybody has internet access either. its easy for me but lots of people have no access to internet.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Because your question omits that in these circumstances the right will be guaranteed because of the mere existence of the ECJ. The ECJ will uphold that right because it will be inscribed in the treaty.
You say you've studied law. Then could you find me an example where the ECJ in its history have ruled against EU treaties and law.
If you cannot you're making a BIG assumption on your neutrality clause not being respected by the EU.
Conversely, how is the neutrality principle in the Irish constitution guaranteed?
As for specific examples of cases i cant give you any because i studied it 2 years ago. But "ruling against the treaties" is not what i said - if the clause is not even in the treaty then the ECJ cannot rule against it.
If the clause is in the Treaty then i would be happy to vote for it. BUT ive spent some time looking for it and dont see any evidence of it.
Irish people may need the (neutral) information provided because Ireland already has some "opt-outs" in the area of the Policing Pillar of the EU, and Ireland has not joined the Schegen border controls agreement...it would be nice to see what happens to these if we vote yes. its very technical and hard to understand, even courts do not expect the majority of people to understand complicated EU Treaties. This is why the government here has to supply unbiased information to the people before a referendum.
Overall, I think you're right about EU being about more countries benefitting from each other etc and , apart from the issues around neutrality - i have NO problems with the rest of it.
Once i can see something that clearly says neutrality will not be affected, ill be happy. But i cant find that anywhere. thats just me
Neutrality isnt specifically protected in our constitution, but the constitution was drafted by a government that supported neutrality so Neutrality features in it and is suggested in it.
The government has voted to defend neutrality here before, ie (WW2). But how or whether the government will defend neutrality under the new Treaty hasnt been explained by the government yet and thats very off-putting for people.
Ok, well then I no longer care if it's selfish or not... although I do believe I'm doing everyone a favour... cos I said it's NOT just the issue of neutrality... EVERYTHING will be taken out of our hands. It's also not about trust... although I wouldn't trust an aquaintance with these issues... why should I trust a bunch of people I've never met and have nothing in common with my life?
Well, I can assure you that you won't be doing THIS European citizen a favour! [if it wasn't clear enough! ]
That's the misconception - that everything will be taken out of your hands.
Besides you keep suggesting that it's corruption in Irish politics that lead me to feel this way. Perhaps it is... but wasn't there also quite a few scandals in Italian politics? Corruption amongst politicians isn't unique to Ireland.... but better the devil you know, eh?
I mentioned corruption [topical with the resignation of Aherne - not allusion that it's more endemic to Ireland!] and other issues as an example of considerations that voters may have when casting their ballots, ie the opportunity to have a say about national grievances even if the vote is about European issues. That happened in the Netherlands and France, and it is quite common. It's happening now in the British local elections. Voters using their votes against the national government even if their local council has performed well.
why is that suddenly not the issue? It is AN issue... obviously not THE issue but it's easy for YOU to say it's not the issue you're the one with the 29 votes.
Italy having more votes than Ireland is not the issue for me. Of course, it's fair that bigger states have more votes. Germany or Italy or France are bigger states, with bigger economies, populations than the smaller states bigger budget contributions too, btw. The issue is whether to increase qualified majority voting rather than sticking with country veto.
Selfish would be if I were doing it for my OWN needs... but no, I'm voting no for every Irish person and for every european person who wants to vote no but won't get the opportunity to do so.
From a globalisation point of view, the situation they are trying to force on us basically scares the shit out of me. The ECJ is still just run by people... people change... the world changes. We've seen America as a fantastic example of why we do not need to give politicians more power. they're doing the same thing to us that they've done on the americans... scare us into handing them the power and tell us it's all for the good of the poor starving eastern europeans. I'm suggesting that every country has the opportunity that we have... that they can choose for themselves!
What is it that scare you? Do you think Ireland will fare better on its own in an age of increasing globalisation?
The ECJ upholds the rule of law against non conformity of the Treaty. It is a guarantee for citizens. Of course, one cannot predict the future. But to be honest, the stronger Europe voice gets on the world stage the better it will be, to provide an alternative view. Whether that's going to happen... it's highly unlikely. In foreign policy, as past years have shown, you still have the UK going on its own, against the EU, but following the US lead.
Hmm... yes, we've all seen from the eurovision how block voting is a GREAT advantage to western europe :rolleyes:
France, Germany, Italy and the UK... add Spain and Poland to that and that's almost 200 votes out of 255 needed... 6 countries out of the 27 control well over half of the ENTIRE votes :eek: that's just asking for all kinds of trouble!
You never know! 21 countries could forge alliances still. Plus, the UK really is the black sheep, as it were. It's always been France and Germany and Italy the engine of European integration, but in the current political climate there won't be much drive towards it.
The government has voted to defend neutrality here before, ie (WW2). But how or whether the government will defend neutrality under the new Treaty hasnt been explained by the government yet and thats very off-putting for people.
especially considering how Bertie and his government didn't seem to respect our neutrality very much either. I think he even said at one stage something about how we're only neutral cos we say we are.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
You don't understand... it does not actually SAY in the treaty ANYWHERE that the Irish neutrality is protected. It says we can decide if, and when, a decision like that should need to be made. However what they don't tell us is that if we vote yes, it will be our politicians making the decision FOR us.
Irish neutrality is a BIG thing in our constitution and always has been!
Nobody's saying the ECJ will or would break any agreements in the treaty. They wouldn't have to cos there's very little if nothing MAKING them break anything
Wait, I thought JordyWordy said that Irish neutrality is guaranteed in the Lisbon treaty but not specified how it will be and that's why the panic that it could not be respected in future years.
I'm confused...
let me do a quick search. gee, I should be doing some work instead!!
oh no, I agree completely... what I'm saying is if THEY want us to vote yes... like they keep telling us we SHOULD, perhaps they should try telling the people WHY. That's why I was reading up on it, cos everyone's at a loss as to what the hell we're actually voting FOR. I haven't seen any leaflets... not everybody has internet access either. its easy for me but lots of people have no access to internet.
Looks like the Irish government will score a own goal then. You can tell information has not been comprehensive nor effective.
Wait, I thought JordyWordy said that Irish neutrality is guaranteed in the Lisbon treaty but not specified how it will be and that's why the panic that it could not be respected in future years.
I'm confused...
let me do a quick search. gee, I should be doing some work instead!!
From what I gather, the Lisbon Treaty doesn't take away Ireland's neutrality.
However, it does take away the need for the Irish government to hold a referendum if the topic of losing our neutrality comes up. And I think I speak for most Irish people when I say I don't trust ANY government with that kind of decision.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
The ECJ upholds the rule of law against non conformity of the Treaty. It is a guarantee for citizens. Of course, one cannot predict the future. But to be honest, the stronger Europe voice gets on the world stage the better it will be, to provide an alternative view. Whether that's going to happen... it's highly unlikely. In foreign policy, as past years have shown, you still have the UK going on its own, against the EU, but following the US lead.
Very true about the UK.
Again, like Rhinocerous said, the problem is that the government could be able to decide for itself, without asking the people.
Surely there is a way for this to be avoided?
As for specific examples of cases i cant give you any because i studied it 2 years ago. But "ruling against the treaties" is not what i said - if the clause is not even in the treaty then the ECJ cannot rule against it.
If the clause is in the Treaty then i would be happy to vote for it. BUT ive spent some time looking for it and dont see any evidence of it.
Irish people may need the (neutral) information provided because Ireland already has some "opt-outs" in the area of the Policing Pillar of the EU, and Ireland has not joined the Schegen border controls agreement...it would be nice to see what happens to these if we vote yes. its very technical and hard to understand, even courts do not expect the majority of people to understand complicated EU Treaties. This is why the government here has to supply unbiased information to the people before a referendum.
Overall, I think you're right about EU being about more countries benefitting from each other etc and , apart from the issues around neutrality - i have NO problems with the rest of it.
Once i can see something that clearly says neutrality will not be affected, ill be happy. But i cant find that anywhere. thats just me
Wait, you said earlier on that "The Treaty states that member countries must aide others in times of war and crisis. It does mention that Irelands neutrality will be safeguarded - BUT PROVIDES NO EXPLANATION OR LEGAL FRAMEWORK AS TO HOW THIS WILL BE DONE.
and that's why I dragged the ECJ into it by explaining that since its duty is to uphold EU law and conformity to the treaty this should provide you with reason/relief that Irish neutrality will be safeguarded.
have you guys read the source first of all? The EU website?
Wait, I thought JordyWordy said that Irish neutrality is guaranteed in the Lisbon treaty but not specified how it will be and that's why the panic that it could not be respected in future years.
I'm confused...
let me do a quick search. gee, I should be doing some work instead!!
Kind of. I said that the Lisbon Treaty *claims* to guarantee Irish neutrality. But doesnt explain how.
Well, I can assure you that you won't be doing THIS European citizen a favour! [if it wasn't clear enough! ]
That's the misconception - that everything will be taken out of your hands. .
But you have said yourself that a good thing about voting yes is that there will be no more national votes to slow things down... that's far from a misconception. And yes, I realise I won't be doing you a favour... however it is MY vote... and your trying to persuade me to vote for europe against my own better judgement is persuading me even further to the contrary I'm afraid . Having had the chance to debate my points I've realised how much of a blatent scam it is and it actually kinda infuriates me.
I mentioned corruption [topical with the resignation of Aherne - not allusion that it's more endemic to Ireland!] and other issues as an example of considerations that voters may have when casting their ballots, ie the opportunity to have a say about national grievances even if the vote is about European issues. That happened in the Netherlands and France, and it is quite common. It's happening now in the British local elections. Voters using their votes against the national government even if their local council has performed well. .
That's a good point... however it's also a very very valid reason to vote against your government when they haven't been doing well. The government are championing a yes vote... our government are shit... so therefore I should vote against what they want... you can't deny it makes sense. However, I do get the impression from everyone I speak to that people genuinely DO want to be informed. I know nobody who takes their vote lightly.
Italy having more votes than Ireland is not the issue for me. Of course, it's fair that bigger states have more votes. Germany or Italy or France are bigger states, with bigger economies, populations than the smaller states bigger budget contributions too, btw. The issue is whether to increase qualified majority voting rather than sticking with country veto. .
So why does Poland have 27 votes? Are they one of the major contributors? I thought they're one of the poorest. So that too would be another reason I would vote against... it's all well and good saying it's a great idea when you're country has the most votes.
What is it that scare you? Do you think Ireland will fare better on its own in an age of increasing globalisation? .
Globalisation scares me! I have a very strong sense of national identity and I don't feel the need to surrender that. I just think globalisation makes the rich richer, holds back the poor and makes society in general a less nicer thing to be a part of. But that's just my opinion... based on the changes I've noticed in the world.
The ECJ upholds the rule of law against non conformity of the Treaty. It is a guarantee for citizens. Of course, one cannot predict the future. But to be honest, the stronger Europe voice gets on the world stage the better it will be, to provide an alternative view. Whether that's going to happen... it's highly unlikely. In foreign policy, as past years have shown, you still have the UK going on its own, against the EU, but following the US lead.
You said it yourself... one cannot predict the future. That's the simple point I'm trying to make. You also bring up the point of foreign policy... that is the bigger picture I feel is behind all of this. I just don't want to be a part of it. I think the EU has served its current purpose... the future is a defensive one, to actually compete with America... and I don't want to have anything to do with any of it. Of course, I am merely speaking of potential implications FAR down the line... but anything that's possible certainly can't be ruled out.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Looks like the Irish government will score a own goal then. You can tell information has not been comprehensive nor effective.
When do you guys vote?
June... I think the 12th
They made the exact same mistake with the Nice treaty. No information so people voted no. They were much more careful the second time around. People just wanna know what the fuck we're voting for and not feel like somebody somewhere is trying to fool us.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Wait, you said earlier on that "The Treaty states that member countries must aide others in times of war and crisis. It does mention that Irelands neutrality will be safeguarded - BUT PROVIDES NO EXPLANATION OR LEGAL FRAMEWORK AS TO HOW THIS WILL BE DONE.
and that's why I dragged the ECJ into it by explaining that since its duty is to uphold EU law and conformity to the treaty this should provide you with reason/relief that Irish neutrality will be safeguarded.
have you guys read the source first of all? The EU website?
Looks like the Irish neutrality issue has been the key topic for the No side...
It's hard to explain... we've actually been outright TOLD by all kinds of people in power that our neutrality is not at risk at all... in order to get people to vote yes. However, I for one, can't find ANYWHERE it says that! If someone were to point it out to me, fine! But there really are a hell of a lot of chancers trying to fool people into a yes vote with FALSE information. It just seems like an outright lie to me... there is nowhere in the constitution where it would be safeguarded.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Kind of. I said that the Lisbon Treaty *claims* to guarantee Irish neutrality. But doesnt explain how.
It doesnt sound like a guarantee to me.
well then, exactly. Irish neutrality will be in the Lisbon Treaty.
The guarantee will be the ECJ.
Why would that be less of a guarantee for you than the fact the Irish neutrality is not actually in your own constitution but must be preserved by your own government?
What if your fellow country men elected a parliament and government that will not uphold neutrality?
I struggle to see why one case is more of a guarantee than the other...
well then, exactly. Irish neutrality will be in the Lisbon Treaty.
The guarantee will be the ECJ.
Why would that be less of a guarantee for you than the fact the Irish neutrality is not actually in your own constitution but must be preserved by your own government?
What if your fellow country men elected a parliament and government that will not uphold neutrality?
I struggle to see why one case is more of a guarantee than the other...
Right now, it's in our constitution that the Irish people have to vote to get rid of our neutrality. I don't see that happening anytime soon - Irish people have enough to be worried about without fighting someone else's war. So putting it in the hands of our government, trusting them to uphold it, would be ridiculous. It's safe as it is.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
well then, exactly. Irish neutrality will be in the Lisbon Treaty.
The guarantee will be the ECJ.
Why would that be less of a guarantee for you than the fact the Irish neutrality is not actually in your own constitution but must be preserved by your own government?
What if your fellow country men elected a parliament and government that will not uphold neutrality?
I struggle to see why one case is more of a guarantee than the other...
so we simply take their word that it WILL be in the lisbon treaty... when it's not IN the lisbon treaty?
And again, IF it will be in the Lisbon treaty it will be at the discretion of our government, who have been fickle about it in the past. not to be patronising, but the fact that you undermine the importance of this suggests you do not understand the importance of this to the Irish people... and it's hugely important to us! It's quite a big bit of what we stand for.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
well then, exactly. Irish neutrality will be in the Lisbon Treaty.
The guarantee will be the ECJ.
Why would that be less of a guarantee for you than the fact the Irish neutrality is not actually in your own constitution but must be preserved by your own government?
What if your fellow country men elected a parliament and government that will not uphold neutrality?
I struggle to see why one case is more of a guarantee than the other...
No. You're wrong there. The summaries, and reports and politicians say the guarantee is in the Treaty, but when you read the Treaty, it is not there!!!!
The guarantee should be a written sentence in the Treaty explaining HOW it will be protected. THERE IS NO SUCH SENTENCE AS FAR AS I CAN SEE.
if i could see it, id be happy to vote for it..
Heres an example. If there was no law written down in Italy saying stealing is illegal, then the courts would (technically) not have to protect the victims of stealing.
THE ECJ SHOULD NOT HAVE TO CREATE THE LAW OR MECHANISM OF THE PROTECTION.
(EU Parliaments/Councils/Commission/etc write laws, EU Courts interperet them)
and for your last point:
Neutrality has been an established policy here for over 90 years (since independence). The chance of Irish people changing that is minimal. With Lisbon, the chance seems to be higher
But you have said yourself that a good thing about voting yes is that there will be no more national votes to slow things down... that's far from a misconception. And yes, I realise I won't be doing you a favour... however it is MY vote... and your trying to persuade me to vote for europe against my own better judgement is persuading me even further to the contrary I'm afraid . Having had the chance to debate my points I've realised how much of a blatent scam it is and it actually kinda infuriates me.
The misconception is that you're giving power to Europe, some undefined entity. With this treaty you will actually be giving yourself as EU citizen more power because the European Parliament will have stronger powers. Otherwise, decision-making has always been made by the Council, the voice of the national elected governments and the EU Commission, which even though it favoured a more collaborative agenda was still appointed by governments, not directly by citizens.
That's a good point... however it's also a very very valid reason to vote against your government when they haven't been doing well. The government are championing a yes vote... our government are shit... so therefore I should vote against what they want... you can't deny it makes sense. However, I do get the impression from everyone I speak to that people genuinely DO want to be informed. I know nobody who takes their vote lightly.
But that's not what the referendum is about. Why mixing these issues up? That does not make sense to me. You have political election to air your grievances for what your local or central administration have been doing. This is a European issue. And therein lies the danger.
Can you not contact your local MEP about your concerns? It'd be interesting to see what they say.
So why does Poland have 27 votes? Are they one of the major contributors? I thought they're one of the poorest. So that too would be another reason I would vote against... it's all well and good saying it's a great idea when you're country has the most votes.
They're one of the bigger states in population. And that's why majority voting will help, otherwise one veto and that's it. Deadlock.
Globalisation scares me! I have a very strong sense of national identity and I don't feel the need to surrender that. I just think globalisation makes the rich richer, holds back the poor and makes society in general a less nicer thing to be a part of. But that's just my opinion... based on the changes I've noticed in the world.
One doesn't preclude the other though. You cannot roll back globalisation but you can mitigate its worst effects. The question is how. Do you think isolating Ireland will do that? Will it leave the eurozone as well?
You said it yourself... one cannot predict the future. That's the simple point I'm trying to make. You also bring up the point of foreign policy... that is the bigger picture I feel is behind all of this. I just don't want to be a part of it. I think the EU has served its current purpose... the future is a defensive one, to actually compete with America... and I don't want to have anything to do with any of it. Of course, I am merely speaking of potential implications FAR down the line... but anything that's possible certainly can't be ruled out.
But a common EU voice, or as common as possible in the world stage vis-a-vis the US and the UK can only be beneficial. Consider also that China and India are becoming major players and Russia is not so much dormant nowadays considering what's happened with the gas supply, etc. So a less belligerant voice should be welcome.
so we simply take their word that it WILL be in the lisbon treaty... when it's not IN the lisbon treaty?
And again, IF it will be in the Lisbon treaty it will be at the discretion of our government, who have been fickle about it in the past. not to be patronising, but the fact that you undermine the importance of this suggests you do not understand the importance of this to the Irish people... and it's hugely important to us! It's quite a big bit of what we stand for.
???
how am I undermining the importance of neutrality???
Also, first it's been said that neutrality will be guaranteed in the Lisbon Treaty, now it's not??
Comments
Of course, I am not assuming everyone is a Euro enthusiast and want closer union! The facts are though that citizens THROUGH their elected representatives in government are for closer integration with the Lisbon Treaty. Selfish is the interest of one nation contrasted to the other interests of the member states. Selfish means withholding the greater good for one particular need that benefits only one country/individual, etc. So it is selfish.
Whether you have trust in politicians, that's another issue.
Yes, Italy is one of the big country and a founding member states. This is not the issue. The issue is fair representation. The veto is increasingly not in such a big union.
isn't this a contradiction? saying it's not selfish and then claiming you are going to put your country needs first? How is that not selfish from a European perspective?!
You are assuming what's going to happen in the future with no basis in the past though. As I was saying to JordyWordy the ECJ responsibility to uphold EU treaties. Not the Irish government. So you have to extend the issue of trust/mistrust to bureacrats, judges etc etc.
So you're claiming it would be better for individual citizens should vote on any single EU issue and do without the European parliament?
What's voters' participation in Ireland? trend are for more apathy in citizens.
Ok, so this is about qualified majority voting... not vetoes. In your earlier posts you mentioned the need for 4 vetoes.
No danger for the UK to be running Europe!!!
How is central Europe choosing for Ireland??? Ireland could still make voting coalition with other states if they agree on the issue. Otherwise, why would the rest of Europe go with what Ireland decides with vetos and referenda?
You see, how you can turn the argument??
Qualified majority voting provides a fairer system for ALL. Not just one country or a few. If you do not find other states that agree on a certain issue, well majority rules, and that's democracy.
Because your question omits that in these circumstances the right will be guaranteed because of the mere existence of the ECJ. The ECJ will uphold that right because it will be inscribed in the treaty.
You say you've studied law. Then could you find me an example where the ECJ in its history have ruled against EU treaties and law.
If you cannot you're making a BIG assumption on your neutrality clause not being respected by the EU.
Conversely, how is the neutrality principle in the Irish constitution guaranteed?
Ok, well then I no longer care if it's selfish or not... although I do believe I'm doing everyone a favour... cos I said it's NOT just the issue of neutrality... EVERYTHING will be taken out of our hands. It's also not about trust... although I wouldn't trust an aquaintance with these issues... why should I trust a bunch of people I've never met and have nothing in common with my life?
Besides you keep suggesting that it's corruption in Irish politics that lead me to feel this way. Perhaps it is... but wasn't there also quite a few scandals in Italian politics? Corruption amongst politicians isn't unique to Ireland.... but better the devil you know, eh?
why is that suddenly not the issue? It is AN issue... obviously not THE issue but it's easy for YOU to say it's not the issue
Selfish would be if I were doing it for my OWN needs... but no, I'm voting no for every Irish person and for every european person who wants to vote no but won't get the opportunity to do so. From a globalisation point of view, the situation they are trying to force on us basically scares the shit out of me.
The ECJ is still just run by people... people change... the world changes. We've seen America as a fantastic example of why we do not need to give politicians more power. they're doing the same thing to us that they've done on the americans... scare us into handing them the power and tell us it's all for the good of the poor starving eastern europeans.
I'm suggesting that every country has the opportunity that we have... that they can choose for themselves!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Helen, why would you wait for politicians to provide you with the information? whichever side you'll hear will be biased anyway. Propaganda. You should read as much as possible then make your own mind and decision.
Isn't that a contradiction though? You don't trust your government and politicians but then you want them to provide you with the information about the issues?
France, Germany, Italy and the UK... add Spain and Poland to that and that's almost 200 votes out of 255 needed... 6 countries out of the 27 control well over half of the ENTIRE votes :eek: that's just asking for all kinds of trouble!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Irish neutrality is a BIG thing in our constitution and always has been!
Nobody's saying the ECJ will or would break any agreements in the treaty. They wouldn't have to cos there's very little if nothing MAKING them break anything
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
As for specific examples of cases i cant give you any because i studied it 2 years ago. But "ruling against the treaties" is not what i said - if the clause is not even in the treaty then the ECJ cannot rule against it.
If the clause is in the Treaty then i would be happy to vote for it. BUT ive spent some time looking for it and dont see any evidence of it.
Irish people may need the (neutral) information provided because Ireland already has some "opt-outs" in the area of the Policing Pillar of the EU, and Ireland has not joined the Schegen border controls agreement...it would be nice to see what happens to these if we vote yes. its very technical and hard to understand, even courts do not expect the majority of people to understand complicated EU Treaties. This is why the government here has to supply unbiased information to the people before a referendum.
Overall, I think you're right about EU being about more countries benefitting from each other etc and , apart from the issues around neutrality - i have NO problems with the rest of it.
Once i can see something that clearly says neutrality will not be affected, ill be happy. But i cant find that anywhere. thats just me
The government has voted to defend neutrality here before, ie (WW2). But how or whether the government will defend neutrality under the new Treaty hasnt been explained by the government yet and thats very off-putting for people.
Well, I can assure you that you won't be doing THIS European citizen a favour! [if it wasn't clear enough!
That's the misconception - that everything will be taken out of your hands.
I mentioned corruption [topical with the resignation of Aherne - not allusion that it's more endemic to Ireland!] and other issues as an example of considerations that voters may have when casting their ballots, ie the opportunity to have a say about national grievances even if the vote is about European issues. That happened in the Netherlands and France, and it is quite common. It's happening now in the British local elections. Voters using their votes against the national government even if their local council has performed well.
Italy having more votes than Ireland is not the issue for me. Of course, it's fair that bigger states have more votes. Germany or Italy or France are bigger states, with bigger economies, populations than the smaller states bigger budget contributions too, btw. The issue is whether to increase qualified majority voting rather than sticking with country veto.
What is it that scare you? Do you think Ireland will fare better on its own in an age of increasing globalisation?
The ECJ upholds the rule of law against non conformity of the Treaty. It is a guarantee for citizens. Of course, one cannot predict the future. But to be honest, the stronger Europe voice gets on the world stage the better it will be, to provide an alternative view. Whether that's going to happen... it's highly unlikely. In foreign policy, as past years have shown, you still have the UK going on its own, against the EU, but following the US lead.
You never know! 21 countries could forge alliances still. Plus, the UK really is the black sheep, as it were. It's always been France and Germany and Italy the engine of European integration, but in the current political climate there won't be much drive towards it.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Wait, I thought JordyWordy said that Irish neutrality is guaranteed in the Lisbon treaty but not specified how it will be and that's why the panic that it could not be respected in future years.
I'm confused...
let me do a quick search. gee, I should be doing some work instead!!
Looks like the Irish government will score a own goal then. You can tell information has not been comprehensive nor effective.
When do you guys vote?
From what I gather, the Lisbon Treaty doesn't take away Ireland's neutrality.
However, it does take away the need for the Irish government to hold a referendum if the topic of losing our neutrality comes up. And I think I speak for most Irish people when I say I don't trust ANY government with that kind of decision.
To be fair, Ireland is one of the most open, unregulated markets on earth.
Very true about the UK.
Again, like Rhinocerous said, the problem is that the government could be able to decide for itself, without asking the people.
Surely there is a way for this to be avoided?
Wait, you said earlier on that "The Treaty states that member countries must aide others in times of war and crisis. It does mention that Irelands neutrality will be safeguarded - BUT PROVIDES NO EXPLANATION OR LEGAL FRAMEWORK AS TO HOW THIS WILL BE DONE.
and that's why I dragged the ECJ into it by explaining that since its duty is to uphold EU law and conformity to the treaty this should provide you with reason/relief that Irish neutrality will be safeguarded.
have you guys read the source first of all? The EU website?
here's a link:
Q&A on the treaty
http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/faq/index_en.htm
Treaty at a glance:
http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/glance/index_en.htm
Looks like the Irish neutrality issue has been the key topic for the No side...
Kind of. I said that the Lisbon Treaty *claims* to guarantee Irish neutrality. But doesnt explain how.
It doesnt sound like a guarantee to me.
But you have said yourself that a good thing about voting yes is that there will be no more national votes to slow things down... that's far from a misconception. And yes, I realise I won't be doing you a favour... however it is MY vote... and your trying to persuade me to vote for europe against my own better judgement is persuading me even further to the contrary I'm afraid
That's a good point... however it's also a very very valid reason to vote against your government when they haven't been doing well. The government are championing a yes vote... our government are shit... so therefore I should vote against what they want... you can't deny it makes sense. However, I do get the impression from everyone I speak to that people genuinely DO want to be informed. I know nobody who takes their vote lightly.
So why does Poland have 27 votes? Are they one of the major contributors?
Globalisation scares me! I have a very strong sense of national identity and I don't feel the need to surrender that. I just think globalisation makes the rich richer, holds back the poor and makes society in general a less nicer thing to be a part of. But that's just my opinion... based on the changes I've noticed in the world.
You said it yourself... one cannot predict the future. That's the simple point I'm trying to make. You also bring up the point of foreign policy... that is the bigger picture I feel is behind all of this. I just don't want to be a part of it. I think the EU has served its current purpose... the future is a defensive one, to actually compete with America... and I don't want to have anything to do with any of it. Of course, I am merely speaking of potential implications FAR down the line... but anything that's possible certainly can't be ruled out.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
They made the exact same mistake with the Nice treaty. No information so people voted no. They were much more careful the second time around. People just wanna know what the fuck we're voting for and not feel like somebody somewhere is trying to fool us.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
well then, exactly. Irish neutrality will be in the Lisbon Treaty.
The guarantee will be the ECJ.
Why would that be less of a guarantee for you than the fact the Irish neutrality is not actually in your own constitution but must be preserved by your own government?
What if your fellow country men elected a parliament and government that will not uphold neutrality?
I struggle to see why one case is more of a guarantee than the other...
Right now, it's in our constitution that the Irish people have to vote to get rid of our neutrality. I don't see that happening anytime soon - Irish people have enough to be worried about without fighting someone else's war. So putting it in the hands of our government, trusting them to uphold it, would be ridiculous. It's safe as it is.
And again, IF it will be in the Lisbon treaty it will be at the discretion of our government, who have been fickle about it in the past. not to be patronising, but the fact that you undermine the importance of this suggests you do not understand the importance of this to the Irish people... and it's hugely important to us! It's quite a big bit of what we stand for.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
No. You're wrong there. The summaries, and reports and politicians say the guarantee is in the Treaty, but when you read the Treaty, it is not there!!!!
The guarantee should be a written sentence in the Treaty explaining HOW it will be protected. THERE IS NO SUCH SENTENCE AS FAR AS I CAN SEE.
if i could see it, id be happy to vote for it..
Heres an example. If there was no law written down in Italy saying stealing is illegal, then the courts would (technically) not have to protect the victims of stealing.
THE ECJ SHOULD NOT HAVE TO CREATE THE LAW OR MECHANISM OF THE PROTECTION.
(EU Parliaments/Councils/Commission/etc write laws, EU Courts interperet them)
and for your last point:
Neutrality has been an established policy here for over 90 years (since independence). The chance of Irish people changing that is minimal. With Lisbon, the chance seems to be higher
The misconception is that you're giving power to Europe, some undefined entity. With this treaty you will actually be giving yourself as EU citizen more power because the European Parliament will have stronger powers. Otherwise, decision-making has always been made by the Council, the voice of the national elected governments and the EU Commission, which even though it favoured a more collaborative agenda was still appointed by governments, not directly by citizens.
But that's not what the referendum is about. Why mixing these issues up? That does not make sense to me. You have political election to air your grievances for what your local or central administration have been doing. This is a European issue. And therein lies the danger.
Can you not contact your local MEP about your concerns? It'd be interesting to see what they say.
They're one of the bigger states in population. And that's why majority voting will help, otherwise one veto and that's it. Deadlock.
One doesn't preclude the other though. You cannot roll back globalisation but you can mitigate its worst effects. The question is how. Do you think isolating Ireland will do that? Will it leave the eurozone as well?
But a common EU voice, or as common as possible in the world stage vis-a-vis the US and the UK can only be beneficial. Consider also that China and India are becoming major players and Russia is not so much dormant nowadays considering what's happened with the gas supply, etc. So a less belligerant voice should be welcome.
Umm... the three Irish posts about neutrality. LGT posted as I was typing.:o
???
how am I undermining the importance of neutrality???
Also, first it's been said that neutrality will be guaranteed in the Lisbon Treaty, now it's not??
Which is which?