FGers considering voting against EU treaty

[geraghd]

geraghd.
I'm letting others make my decision for me.
Again. Geraghd. why should I vote yes?

How is the foriegn policy decided? This interests me.

Well at the moment it is mainly obviously the Council but co-ordinated between two post at commission level. The reform treaty creates a new position of High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs and Security which makes a whole lot of sense.
Its also reduces the number of commissioner because any cabinet of 27 members is arguably too many.
It also stregthens the parliament and gives a say to national parliaments, also a good thing.
And it creates one president of the council rather than a rotating one between member states every six month which is also a good thing.

So do you need any more convincing?
If so, look it up.

[adamirer]

Well I've stopped reading after the first page as not one person who said they were voting no, said they were voting no due whats actually ni the threaty, or even the previous version.

Instead they are making comments about perceptions, turkey, because 2 other countries voted no to version 1.0 and 'doing it for others across europe'. What utter stupidity. For informed people thats remarkably embarrassing. At least inform yourself what the treaty is ACTUALLY ABOUT before making such ignorant statements. Not one of those issues are about the treaty. the treaty is fundamentally about making the EU institutions work.

Democracy is there at the council and there in the parliament. You vote for your MEP, you vote for your Ministers. You might not like them, but they were elected. Democracy isn't about the veto on every issue, democracy is about majorities making decisions.

Those complaining about losing veto on more areas, commissioners etc.. well what do you propose instead? Veto can't work with 27 countries, the system is knackered - it needs a big overhaul and this is it.

[The Collective.]

So after this treaty, if the majority of Europe wants to go to war with Muslim Country A and Ireland doesnt, do we get involved?

[geraghd]

So after this treaty, if the majority of Europe wants to go to war with Muslim Country A and Ireland doesnt, do we get involved?

No unless we want to.

[FutureTaoiseach]

Well I've stopped reading after the first page as not one person who said they were voting no, said they were voting no due whats actually ni the threaty, or even the previous version.

Instead they are making comments about perceptions, turkey, because 2 other countries voted no to version 1.0 and 'doing it for others across europe'. What utter stupidity. For informed people thats remarkably embarrassing. At least inform yourself what the treaty is ACTUALLY ABOUT before making such ignorant statements. Not one of those issues are about the treaty. the treaty is fundamentally about making the EU institutions work.

Democracy is there at the council and there in the parliament. You vote for your MEP, you vote for your Ministers. You might not like them, but they were elected. Democracy isn't about the veto on every issue, democracy is about majorities making decisions.

Those complaining about losing veto on more areas, commissioners etc.. well what do you propose instead? Veto can't work with 27 countries, the system is knackered - it needs a big overhaul and this is it.

Yes it can work. Over 90% of the vetoes are already gone. The system works well, and there is no need to give up more vetoes and especially a Commissioner. Given the rantings of EU Commissioners over the yrs for tax-harmonisation, I for one am glad we have Charlie McCreevy to fight our corner against this. Let's ensure the Irish voice is always heard on the Commission. And we were told Nice was enough to make Enlargement work so don't roll that excuse out of the cupboard again. This is about creating a superstate in which the small countries have less of a voice. It abolishes the rotating-presidency on the Council of Ministers too.

No unless we want to.

Collective, do you believe this crowd? So much has happened since Nice that we were told wouldn't. I say we can't trust the pro-treaty politicians. Remember when we were promised free trade in other EU treaties and what we got was Vehicle Registration Tax? You can't trust these Eurofundies.

[geraghd]

Well I've stopped reading after the first page as not one person who said they were voting no, said they were voting no due whats actually ni the threaty, or even the previous version.

Instead they are making comments about perceptions, turkey, because 2 other countries voted no to version 1.0 and 'doing it for others across europe'. What utter stupidity. For informed people thats remarkably embarrassing. At least inform yourself what the treaty is ACTUALLY ABOUT before making such ignorant statements. Not one of those issues are about the treaty. the treaty is fundamentally about making the EU institutions work.

Democracy is there at the council and there in the parliament. You vote for your MEP, you vote for your Ministers. You might not like them, but they were elected. Democracy isn't about the veto on every issue, democracy is about majorities making decisions.

Those complaining about losing veto on more areas, commissioners etc.. well what do you propose instead? Veto can't work with 27 countries, the system is knackered - it needs a big overhaul and this is it.

Yes it can work. Over 90% of the vetoes are already gone. The system works well, and there is no need to give up more vetoes and especially a Commissioner. Given the rantings of EU Commissioners over the yrs for tax-harmonisation, I for one am glad we have Charlie McCreevy to fight our corner against this. Let's ensure the Irish voice is always heard on the Commission. And we were told Nice was enough to make Enlargement work so don't roll that excuse out of the cupboard again. This is about creating a superstate in which the small countries have less of a voice. It abolishes the rotating-presidency on the Council of Ministers too.

No unless we want to.

Collective, do you believe this crowd? So much has happened since Nice that we were told wouldn't. I say we can't trust the pro-treaty politicians. Remember when we were promised free trade in other EU treaties and what we got was Vehicle Registration Tax? You can't trust these Eurofundies.

Stop scaremongering. To suggest that by this treaty we may be forced into a war on a 'Muslim country' cause others may start one that we dont want to get into is ludicrous and really lessens everything you may say against this treaty.

I think a cartoon in the IT around the second Nice campaign put it succintly:

It had a huge crowd of anti-treaty campaigners with the bubble:

'Remember everything bad we said would happen all those other times. Well this time, it will definitly happen!'

[Tiernanator]

Hope it is true and good on Fine Gael if it is.

Hope what is true?

What is the original title of the thread geraghd? Get with the programme babes.

[FutureTaoiseach]

Well I've stopped reading after the first page as not one person who said they were voting no, said they were voting no due whats actually ni the threaty, or even the previous version.

Instead they are making comments about perceptions, turkey, because 2 other countries voted no to version 1.0 and 'doing it for others across europe'. What utter stupidity. For informed people thats remarkably embarrassing. At least inform yourself what the treaty is ACTUALLY ABOUT before making such ignorant statements. Not one of those issues are about the treaty. the treaty is fundamentally about making the EU institutions work.

Democracy is there at the council and there in the parliament. You vote for your MEP, you vote for your Ministers. You might not like them, but they were elected. Democracy isn't about the veto on every issue, democracy is about majorities making decisions.

Those complaining about losing veto on more areas, commissioners etc.. well what do you propose instead? Veto can't work with 27 countries, the system is knackered - it needs a big overhaul and this is it.

Yes it can work. Over 90% of the vetoes are already gone. The system works well, and there is no need to give up more vetoes and especially a Commissioner. Given the rantings of EU Commissioners over the yrs for tax-harmonisation, I for one am glad we have Charlie McCreevy to fight our corner against this. Let's ensure the Irish voice is always heard on the Commission. And we were told Nice was enough to make Enlargement work so don't roll that excuse out of the cupboard again. This is about creating a superstate in which the small countries have less of a voice. It abolishes the rotating-presidency on the Council of Ministers too.

No unless we want to.

Collective, do you believe this crowd? So much has happened since Nice that we were told wouldn't. I say we can't trust the pro-treaty politicians. Remember when we were promised free trade in other EU treaties and what we got was Vehicle Registration Tax? You can't trust these Eurofundies.

Stop scaremongering. To suggest that by this treaty we may be forced into a war on a 'Muslim country' cause others may start one that we dont want to get into is ludicrous and really lessens everything you may say against this treaty.

I think a cartoon in the IT around the second Nice campaign put it succintly:

It had a huge crowd of anti-treaty campaigners with the bubble:

'Remember everything bad we said would happen all those other times. Well this time, it will definitly happen!'

Need I present the same list of quotes from the yes side in the Nice referendum about stuff that wouldn't happen and in fact did happen that other users have already posted? Why should we believe people who told us they would end waiting-lists in 2 yrs?

A 27 member Commission already exists and works fine. Losing our Commissioner means noone to fight our corner on issues like tax-harmonisation. Commission President Barroso is in favour of the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB). As is Tax Commissioner Kovacz. These cheerleaders for tax-harmonisation being without dissent from Commissioners opposed to this nonsense like Charlie McCreevy does not inspire confidence as to the safety of our low corporate-tax regime, which has inspired the envy of countries like France and Germany.

The Treaty does advance the cause of those who want an EU defence pact - specifically Article 27 paragraph 7. Let's not sent Irish sons and grandsons to war in countries of which we know little.

[antagoniser]

Need I present the same list of quotes from the yes side in the Nice referendum about stuff that wouldn't happen and in fact did happen that other users have already posted? Why should we believe people who told us they would end waiting-lists in 2 yrs?

please!

[geraghd]

Well I've stopped reading after the first page as not one person who said they were voting no, said they were voting no due whats actually ni the threaty, or even the previous version.

Instead they are making comments about perceptions, turkey, because 2 other countries voted no to version 1.0 and 'doing it for others across europe'. What utter stupidity. For informed people thats remarkably embarrassing. At least inform yourself what the treaty is ACTUALLY ABOUT before making such ignorant statements. Not one of those issues are about the treaty. the treaty is fundamentally about making the EU institutions work.

Democracy is there at the council and there in the parliament. You vote for your MEP, you vote for your Ministers. You might not like them, but they were elected. Democracy isn't about the veto on every issue, democracy is about majorities making decisions.

Those complaining about losing veto on more areas, commissioners etc.. well what do you propose instead? Veto can't work with 27 countries, the system is knackered - it needs a big overhaul and this is it.

Yes it can work. Over 90% of the vetoes are already gone. The system works well, and there is no need to give up more vetoes and especially a Commissioner. Given the rantings of EU Commissioners over the yrs for tax-harmonisation, I for one am glad we have Charlie McCreevy to fight our corner against this. Let's ensure the Irish voice is always heard on the Commission. And we were told Nice was enough to make Enlargement work so don't roll that excuse out of the cupboard again. This is about creating a superstate in which the small countries have less of a voice. It abolishes the rotating-presidency on the Council of Ministers too.

No unless we want to.

Collective, do you believe this crowd? So much has happened since Nice that we were told wouldn't. I say we can't trust the pro-treaty politicians. Remember when we were promised free trade in other EU treaties and what we got was Vehicle Registration Tax? You can't trust these Eurofundies.

Stop scaremongering. To suggest that by this treaty we may be forced into a war on a 'Muslim country' cause others may start one that we dont want to get into is ludicrous and really lessens everything you may say against this treaty.

I think a cartoon in the IT around the second Nice campaign put it succintly:

It had a huge crowd of anti-treaty campaigners with the bubble:

'Remember everything bad we said would happen all those other times. Well this time, it will definitly happen!'

A 27 member Commission already exists and works fine. Losing our Commissioner means noone to fight our corner on issues like tax-harmonisation. Commission President Barroso is in favour of the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB). As is Tax Commissioner Kovacz. These cheerleaders for tax-harmonisation being without dissent from Commissioners opposed to this nonsense like Charlie McCreevy does not inspire confidence as to the safety of our low corporate-tax regime, which has inspired the envy of countries like France and Germany.

The Treaty does advance the cause of those who want an EU defence pact - specifically Article 27 paragraph 7. Let's not sent Irish sons and grandsons to war in countries of which we know little.

Tax harmonisation is arguable a good thing for Ireland, and anyways noone fights our corner in the Commission. Each commissioner represents the Union not their home country and are in fact legally bound to do so.

And wrt Article 27 could you quote the full article or at least the paragraph? And when you say wars in countries we know little of, would you include East Timor and Liberia in that too?