FGers considering voting against EU treaty

[easygoing]

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?

Change the record.

[geraghd]

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.

the lack of respect for democracy is disgraceful.

Ill let it go that you arent a FG member and therefore this might be off topic but your comment above is ridiculous.
Do you not think that the people have a right to change their minds? Because how on earth democracy is being disrepected is beyond me.
Everything, and when I say everything I mean everything is done according to the democratic processes designed by the very sovereign nations you purport to be so important and reverent.

[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?

Change the record.

What on Iraq or on the fact that the EU is a good thing?

[constitutionus]

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.

[quote:28sukyey]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?[/quote:28sukyey]

yup just like we signed up for. union of equals remember? and if memory serves only spain actually voted on the constitution. the rest signed up without a referendum and indeed all the accession countries had to ratify it as part of their accession to the union. hows THAT for democracy.

[mcguirkj]

I'll be voting, and working, for a "no" vote.

2 reasons:

Number one: The French voted no the first time, and are now cynically being denied the chance to vote second time, in case they might do the same thing. Democracy my ar.se.

Number two: The EU is a joke. A big, bureaucratic, waste of space. All the benefits we currently get from the EU, we could get from an EU-wide Free trade area. CAP is an immoral mess, which causes starvation and poverty in other parts of the world, by ruining their competetive advantage.

Oh, and while I'm at it, number three. Every politician and "yes" campaigner will tell us that we'd all vote yes if we "really understood" the treaty. And for all that, they will go out of their way to make it as incomprehensible as possible. The message will be, "be a good European, vote yes".

It's disgusting. Vote no.

[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.

the lack of respect for democracy is disgraceful.

Ill let it go that you arent a FG member and therefore this might be off topic but your comment above is ridiculous.
Do you not think that the people have a right to change their minds? Because how on earth democracy is being disrepected is beyond me.
Everything, and when I say everything I mean everything is done according to the democratic processes designed by the very sovereign nations you purport to be so important and reverent.

if you cant see the majority of europe not being allowed to vote on this on a citizen level as being undemocratic then your beyond hope. PEOPLE can change their minds but unfortunetly the people arent being asked .theyre being TOLD by governments. ask the french and dutch if theyve changed their minds

this is the equivilant of only letting counsillors vote on a referendum and saying its the will of the people.

if its the right thing to do let the people have their say. otherwise just admit its about circumventing democracy and doing what the governments want.

[Finbar]

A resounding NO - because we're possibly the only ones who will be given the choice, I feel we should do it for all the other "peasants" who the Europhiles don't want to consult for fear of more rejection - the treaty itself and it's contents are secondary for me, the giant democracy defecit that we are expected to put up with galls me to no end.

I agree with your point, it certainly would push me towards a NO vote, although I'm probably not as certain as yourself Cormocodran. The idea that they expect these things to just be ratified by Govt's time & again without going to the wider EU population for a view is scary. Minor Treaties, fair enough, but major Treaties like this one appears to be??

The EU could be a great place if they'd get on with streamlining the processes, get rid of trying to justify their jobs with pointless regulations, and just make peoples lives better by what they're doing.

A Lean/Sigma consultant could make a life's work in Brussels I'd imagine.

[myk]

Number two: The EU is a joke. A big, bureaucratic, waste of space. All the benefits we currently get from the EU, we could get from an EU-wide Free trade area.

you know it would be impossible to have a EU-wide free market without having some unified political structures.

[CookieMonster]

"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?

I'm still out on the "Reform Treaty". A lot read more to read.

But I am in favour of further expansion and deeper integration, as MKY suscinctly put it.

For me, geography isn't an issue the EU is more about the Union than the European. If Russia, Turkey or Egypt wanted to join, assuming the met the required standards I'd have no issue with that.
Reform is necessary to allow this, I'm just unsure if the proposed way is the best.

The area of integration is, in my view, a little more tricky. We are after all sovereign nations, still, and we should always remain so. The mention of the EU becoming a federation of states causes concern for me. I don't believe this is the right approach. You ask who should have the final authority on policing and justice matters etc. which should of course remain with the individual nations themselves. It should, i believe, remain a supranational union where the union is subject to it's members and it's members subject to the union equally.
In theory the idea on enhanced cooperation is a good one, but the idealistic streak in me believes we should reach a greater consensus among each member with a balance of risk/gain rather than a half-measure of cooperation.

On the others, world cup/olympics - no way. If anything is going to cause a riot it's the perceived loss of national identity, and such a move is an example of this.

The UN is a different kettle of fish and I can't see it happening. But again greater cooperation on issues of importance that affect us all held through the EU and on then through the UK for example within the UN doesn't seem a bad way to go. An agreeable collection of power served for the greater good of all involved.

It's a bit idealistic and starry-eyed I know, but when you look back at what the Union has become and what it has done for us and for Europe since WW2, had you said that then you'd have been called a starry-eyed idealist too (and probably locked up!).

Oh and I'm not a FG member, I just though I'd weigh in.

[CookieMonster]

Number two: The EU is a joke. A big, bureaucratic, waste of space. All the benefits we currently get from the EU, we could get from an EU-wide Free trade area.

you know it would be impossible to have a EU-wide free market without having some unified political structures.

Oh it would be possible.

For about twenty minutes until somebody gets upset, flounces off, shoots Archduke Franz Ferdinand and starts a war. You can't do that when we're subject to one another.