Why did you vote Yes/No to Lisbon?

[hibernia_free]

Voted NO To keep Hibernia Free!

[Coleman]

I voted no because I'm anti-militarisation of europe and anti-privatisation. I'm also concerned about the increasing power of the European Court of Justice and how it clearly takes the side of big business over workers as seen in the Laval case.

I voted No because the Lisbon Treaty is a very important step in the road to the federalisation of Europe. It gives the constitutional foundation to a federal superstate and makes us real citizens of it for the first time. Despite false claims to the contrary, citizenship is an objective legal concept with important political implications. Only states can have citizens and one can only be a citizen of a state. EU citizenship was complementary to national citizenship until Lisbon with the latter clearly being primary. This was useful in that it helped soften us up to the idea of being citizens of the EU, with attendant duties of loyalty to its institutions and obedience to its laws. Lisbon makes citizenship of the EU "additional to" national citizenship just as an American citizen is also a citizen of an individual state; and just as in the case of the USA, it seems reasonable to assume that the EU citizenship would become primary over time. The Lisbon Treaty changes the designation of Members of the European Parliament from "representatives of the peoples of the States brought together in the Community" to "representatives of the Union's citizens" (Art 14.2 amended TEU).

Lisbon would endow the EU with a new political president, albeit with limited powers as of yet (but see below), a foreign minister (called as such in the European Consitituion but renamed 'High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy'), a diplomatic corps (called External Action Service and with its offices already in place even before ratification), a pubic prosecutor, a code of civil rights made legally binding for the first time, with a supreme court whose scope for action is consequently greatly widened (the European Court of Justice).

Lisbon would turn the European Council of Prime Ministers and Presidents into an "institution" of the new Union (Art 13, amended TEU) of a federalist character evidenced by its permanent political president. No intergovernmental gathering of heads of state in the world has a permanent president. As part of the new EU, these representatives would be required to "promote the Union's values" and "advance its objectives" (Art 13.1, amended TEU).
The reduction in the number of commissioners, already prescribed by Nice, is a symbolically important move to federalism since member states will lack a representative on a body proposing laws to which they will be subject. Crucially, the fact that member states are only allowed make "suggestions" for members of the commission copperfastens this federalism. Previously, by having the power to propose commissioners, member states could ensure their choices were accepted as they could block proposals from other member states. Now power is transferred to the commission president to decide (Art 17.7 amended TEU) who is also newly capacitated to dismiss commissioners at will (Art 17.6 amended TEU). Such measures equip the commission president with powers equivalent to a national prime minister.

Lisbon continues the relentless process of progressively removing power away from the nation states and transferring that power to bureaucratic elites in blatant defiance of the 2001 Laeken Declaration that "the Union must be brought closer to its citizens." Since its inception the Union has relentlessly appropriated member states' sovereignty while concealing this political enterprise under the cloak of economic treaties and coining propagandist slogans-"pooling sovereignty"- to mask the underlying reality.

Post-Lisbon only a residue of the former nation states would be left. This is why opponents of Lisbon and all federalist EU integration, whatever their reasons for voting no, and whatever their political persuasion, should unite in putting pressure on the Government to represent the will of the people to their European colleagues and in opposing any attempts to re-ratify Lisbon by whatever devious means, as well as continuing to expose the fundamental truth about the Lisbon Treaty: that it is an attempt to foist a rejected constitution on the European people for the third time, that it is the apotheosis of a deluded poltical dream conceived originally by an elite for the benefit of an elite and through the direction of an elite.

[seabhcan]

Only states can have citizens and one can only be a citizen of a state.

Thats a very limited view. Citizenship was originally created for freemen of Cities, not states. Many countries retain this concept - In the Nederlands, every resident of a city must register as a Citizen of that city, giving them rights to vote in that district.

[evercloserunion]

Only states can have citizens and one can only be a citizen of a state.

Thats a very limited view. Citizenship was originally created for freemen of Cities, not states. Many countries retain this concept - In the Nederlands, every resident of a city must register as a Citizen of that city, giving them rights to vote in that district.

Shh, no debate please, you'll upset brio910.

[J E DeHann]

I voted no because the EU represents a banking dictatorship.

Section 4a Article 245A states in a nutshell:

The ECB is independant of all governments
The ECB had the exclusive right to issue credit
The ECB gives the nod to all laws affecting money (which ones dont?)

Our Constitution says:

That in what pertains ot the control of credit the constant and predominant aim shall be the welfare of the people as a whole.

The Lisbon Treaty gives away the power of the Government to regulate credit (bank loans of ficticious debt based paper) in the common good.

This can only mean one thing. Loss of property, starvation, death.

We are witnessing the loss of property. The rest will surely follow when the f@cking israeli's strike Iran and the oil is hampered. Already the bankers of the City of London have taken the homes of thousands of americans with the Fanny whatever bailout.

The EU is legalised criminalism and they have granted themselved immunity from prosecution. Did you hear about the March 2007 dawn raids on the EU commission offices by over 150 police officers in 4 different countries? The police discovered links to the mafia going back 10 years. Not a word in the fascist Irish Times.

We are absolutley nutsed unless we get rid of our debt based monetary system. We'd be attacked (economically / false terrorism) anyway if we did. People will die regardless.

Check out what Nigel Farage has to say about the criminals in the EU commission on you tube "Whos Who in the EU commission". He's only scratching the surface.

In the imortal words of a hairy Irish bloke:

"There will be Blood".

[Magror14]

I voted no because I want no association with a continent responsible for The Smurfs, Foreigner, and horse-eating.

Hoorrsse. MMmm.

Homer

[McDave]

I voted "Yes"!

Technical reasons (i.e. stuff in the hieroglyphics of the Lisbon Treaty itself)

1. To simplify institutional procedures so:
- legislation on commerce and protection of the public interest won't be dumbed down to the lowest level (which now includes Bulgaria and Romania, with clueless Balkans to come - sorry dudes, it's a fact of life that you've got a lot of catching up to do); and
- if the EU decides to expand any further, the whole edifice won't collapse into anarchy like the UN

2. So the Commission can still operate as a serious "meeting", i.e. not at some point in the future have 35 people jabbering around the table, each being responsible for portfolios like the quality of light bulbs, rights of bisexuals and trade in bananas

3. The High Foreign Counsellor thingie (or whatever the heck it was butchered into in the end), so the EU has someone who can say stuff for Europe like it was against the invasion of Iraq and Iran and the collapse of the Doha Round or whatever the lowest common denominator of attitudes to foreign policy the consensus of the member states is

Blue-sky-with-yellow-stars-thinking thingie

1. I want Ireland to be a core participant of a set-up which promotes:
- democracy
- prosperity
- human rights
- Enlightenment values
- a fecking serious dedication to peaceful cooperation (boring Euroconsensus WORKS!!!)
- trains

2. I want Ireland to closely align itself with:
- societies with diverse languages and cultures
- societies with strong affinities to excellent public services
- sources of high quality beer (Baaaaayern), wine (Bordeauuux), and goats cheese (Baaaasque Country)

3. I want Ireland to be as far as possible away from:
- crap Anglosaxon consumerism
- seriously pathetic British Euroseptics
- a living-to-work ethic

In short, I love Europe!!!!!!!!!

[myksav]

I voted no because I didn't like the contents of the Treaty as a whole. Most of the good points could have been implemented by inter-governmental agreements without effecting our Constitution. The parts I disagreed with out-weighed the good.

[Guinnesslad]

05. Didn't want further EU integration and further breakdowns of sovereignty.
04. Didn't like how it would affect our courts, gave the EU to much power to decide on our matters, or at least in time it would.
03. The idea of having a permanent president, and a single EU foreign minister didn't appeal to me.
02. The fact that once we accepted Lisbon, we'd probably be forced to accept other things to the point we didn't know our asses from our elbows.

01. The way the whole thing went about, the fact no one else got a say but us. The fact that the French and the Dutch were forced to accept something that was 99% the same as the document they previously rejected.

[Magror14]

I voted no because I didn't like the contents of the Treaty as a whole. Most of the good points could have been implemented by inter-governmental agreements without effecting our Constitution. The parts I disagreed with out-weighed the good.

So there were parts that you liked, Myksav? Which ones?