FGers considering voting against EU treaty

[constitutionus]

As some one who is in the "Don't Know" tending towards a probable "No" vote, I am interested in whether there are any other FG supporters considering a no vote and what reasons they might have.

For me the big issue is the failure to out the EU parliament to the centre of EU governance.

I believe at the least the head of the EU should be elected from the parliament. That would be enough of a start to convince me the EU was capable of evolving into a functioning democracy.

Any one else?

I'm voting no. Why? Because I disapprove of the growing centralisation of power in Brussels, and because of the French and Dutch no votes. There are other reasons too: the EU's interference in domestic affairs, it's PCness, and the prospect of Turkish accession.

This is the only chance people have to really tell the EU what they think of it.

im not a FG voter but i have to admit i echo some of these sentiments

the lack of respect for democracy is disgraceful.

the people voted no and here the EU is trying to circumvent it like it doesnt matter and worse PREVENT people from voting on it. am i the only one sickend by the fact we're the ONLY country allowed the privileige to vote on this?

thats the biggest condemnation of this whole process for me. last time i checked europes meant to be a collection of democracies. soverign nations entitled to steer their own destinies working equally for a better future. seems thats not the case anymore, who the hell need facism when weve got the EU !

[myk]

"Progresses", you say. To what??

further expansion and deeper integration.

[jjcarroll]

the people voted no and here the EU is trying to circumvent it like it doesnt matter and worse PREVENT people from voting on it. am i the only one sickend by the fact we're the ONLY country allowed the privileige to vote on this?

And in other places the people, or their representatives voted yes.

So, what happened? They addressed the issues again & made changes. Are we to take the narrow French vote, and an advisory Dutch one as the final say on European reform?

[drbob1972]

as of now i don't know enough to say, plan on being more informed before having to make that decision

[Kf]

"Progresses", you say. To what??

further expansion and deeper integration.

Ok thats fair, but to what extent. How big, geographically do you think the EU should become? And how integrated should the various states be, who should have final authority on policing and justice matters, defence issues, foriegn policy, fiscal policy, immigration policy. Would you like to see the EU in the World Cup, Olympics, seat on the UN, entrant to Miss World?

[Trampas]

When FF arrived back to the Dail with the Nice Treaty, Fine Gael tore it and the govt. to shreds - and then campaigned for a YES vote as if their lives depended on it.

[constitutionus]

in responce to jjcarrols post



YES. thats the whole bloody point of a union of equals. or is that all in the past now.

if one country voted no that was meant to be the end of it. here we have two (and by the way i notice in a wonderfull piece of democracy no one else was allowed to vote after it. thank you bertie!) and STILL theyre trying to force it down our necks albeit with cosmetic but purportedly not major changes.

its like trying to say starburst isnt opal fruits!

whatever way you try to portray it the political elite of europe DONT want their people deciding their future. and thats WRONG.

sovereignty is too crucial an issue to leave to a bunch of bought and paid for party hacks who are actively attacking democracy. dear jesus there are very few place's you can actually say this and be serious but this is about freedom

[myk]

Ok thats fair, but to what extent. How big, geographically do you think the EU should become?

I would like to see Turkey in and eventually any eastern european state that wishes to join and is willing to undetake the appropriate refroms

And how integrated should the various states be, who should have final authority on policing and justice matters, defence issues, foriegn policy, fiscal policy, immigration policy.

i don't think it is simply a matter of final say. Certain decisions across all the areas you mention are better taken at an EU level, certain decisions are better taken at national, regional or local levels.

but i would like to see more direct democracy in the EU institutions

Would you like to see the EU in the World Cup, Olympics, seat on the UN, entrant to Miss World?

no to all of those...and wouldn't that approach make the Eurovision very boring

[jjcarroll]

if one country voted no that was meant to be the end of it. here we have two (and by the way i notice in a wonderfull piece of democracy no one else was allowed to vote after it. thank you bertie!) and STILL theyre trying to force it down our necks albeit with cosmetic but purportedly not major changes.

Two countries voted against it, more voted for it. The leaders of Europe sat down, and made changes to it noting the differing views expressed across Europe, and something different emerged. That would appear to me to be a fair process.

whatever way you try to portray it the political elite of europe DONT want their people deciding their future. and thats WRONG.

Do you want the people of Europe to decide on this, or the people of different European states and each one of those states to have a veto over it all?

[geraghd]

Nope save some mad clause declaring genocide lawful or something Ill be voting Yes.
Im a committed European, a stronger EU is beneficial for its citizens and the world at large, and a more effectively functioning EU which this Treaty seeks to create is definitely a good thing.

How?

Because EU countries will have a much stronger and unified say in geopolitical issues around the world. Our interests will be carried more forcefully and we can contribute to international issues more effectively than at present.
Take for example the United States. Would it be a powerful as it is if each state had its own foreign policy with no unified foreign or defence policy to speak of? Whatever one may think about the Iraq war if only half or so of the states were actually forwarding the argument (ie republican states lets say) would America have invaded?