I am prepared to go back to the Irish people

[Tankie]

Did you delete your last post Tankie?

what u mean

[Zapatista]

- On the idea of Europe working better is also a reason i support the treaty, one of the big parts of this is that we (and every other country) have given up all but 5 veto's which are considered important to individual countries but as for the 60 we have given up i believe the government when they say that they are not needed, in 35 years we have never used them and I thought Garreth Fitz point that a farming one was used against us by France in the 1970's. He pointed out the case of 11 countries voted in favour of a farming subsity but France said it did not suit them so it was rejected, I believe the new model of majority voting is the best way to go on such issues particulary when you have 27+ members.

Sorry Tankie it was this I was looking for and didn't see it.

You say we have given up a vetos already and we haven't used a Veto in 35 years. You say the Government think they are not needed. You use the exapmle of France to show how vetos can be bad.  Yet the Yes campaign say there is no threat against our low corp tax as we have a veto. I'm confused.

The arugument that Lisbon will make the Eu run better (whatever that means) is the same argument given for the establishment of the HSE. It doesn't inspire much confidence in me.

[Tankie]

- On the idea of Europe working better is also a reason i support the treaty, one of the big parts of this is that we (and every other country) have given up all but 5 veto's which are considered important to individual countries but as for the 60 we have given up i believe the government when they say that they are not needed, in 35 years we have never used them and I thought Garreth Fitz point that a farming one was used against us by France in the 1970's. He pointed out the case of 11 countries voted in favour of a farming subsity but France said it did not suit them so it was rejected, I believe the new model of majority voting is the best way to go on such issues particulary when you have 27+ members.

Sorry Tankie it was this I was looking for and didn't see it.

You say we have given up a vetos already and we haven't used a Veto in 35 years. You say the Government think they are not needed. You use the exapmle of France to show how vetos can be bad.  Yet the Yes campaign say there is no threat against our low corp tax as we have a veto. I'm confused.

The arugument that Lisbon will make the Eu run better (whatever that means) is the same argument given for the establishment of the HSE. It doesn't inspire much confidence in me.

I said on the core issues countries still have the Veto still in place but if you were to give 27+ countries a Veto on 70+ topic you would get nothing done.

[Hardy]

Where have the government ever said that the EU would kick us out or that it was a vote on membership?

They say it's vital to "keep Ireland at the heart of Europe". Other 'Yes' proponents keep telling us it's vital to remain part of the EU - most recently Stephenite above, who talked about remaining part of the global economy and Michael O'Leary yesterday, who called me a lunatic.  What do they mean, if not that somehow our membership is threatened if we give the "wrong" answer to this question?

That's a real question, not rhetorical, so I'd appreciate an answer from somebody. What do they mean? How exactly would we lose any particular benefit or group of benefits of EU membership? If they're going to threaten me with this, I need the specifics. It's important stuff as I make up my mind on the future of my family and my country.

[Zapatista]

Where have the government ever said that the EU would kick us out or that it was a vote on membership?

They say it's vital to "keep Ireland at the heart of Europe". Other 'Yes' proponents keep telling us it's vital to remain part of the EU - most recently Stephenite above, who talked about remaining part of the global economy and Michael O'Leary yesterday, who called me a lunatic.  What do they mean, if not that somehow our membership is threatened if we give the "wrong" answer to this question?

That's a real question, not rhetorical, so I'd appreciate an answer from somebody. What do they mean? How exactly would we lose any particular benefit or group of benefits of EU membership? If they're going to threaten me with this, I need the specifics. It's important stuff as I make up my mind on the future of my family and my country.

Goodluck with that. Apparently it's the No side have to answer all questions. I asked that question on the second page and have been trying to answer it since.

[Tankie]

Where have the government ever said that the EU would kick us out or that it was a vote on membership?

They say it's vital to "keep Ireland at the heart of Europe". Other 'Yes' proponents keep telling us it's vital to remain part of the EU - most recently Stephenite above, who talked about remaining part of the global economy and Michael O'Leary yesterday, who called me a lunatic.  What do they mean, if not that somehow our membership is threatened if we give the "wrong" answer to this question?

That's a real question, not rhetorical, so I'd appreciate an answer from somebody. What do they mean? How exactly would we lose any particular benefit or group of benefits of EU membership? If they're going to threaten me with this, I need the specifics. It's important stuff as I make up my mind on the future of my family and my country.

So there government never said it was a vote on membership of the EU!!!! you should be clear on these type of statements you make.

As for Ireland being at the heart of the EU, Hardy you dont seem like a dumb man and i assume you understand how politics work. If 26 countries has said yes to something that they believe will benefit the EU as a whole and Ireland are the only country to say No how do you think out minister will be treated when they go looking for funding etc?
27 countries having 70+ veto's just doesn't work. We cannot be at the heart of Europe if we disagree with the other 26 countries who are looking to progress.

Also if we do say no to something that another 26 countries have said Yes to and this is the way they want to move you must ask  - Why do you still want to be in this club?
The notion that voting No will keep things the same is ridiculous as the EU will then have to fully enforce the nice treaty which will mean Ireland loses its commissioner which was a big issue for the No side.

[Tankie]

Where have the government ever said that the EU would kick us out or that it was a vote on membership?

They say it's vital to "keep Ireland at the heart of Europe". Other 'Yes' proponents keep telling us it's vital to remain part of the EU - most recently Stephenite above, who talked about remaining part of the global economy and Michael O'Leary yesterday, who called me a lunatic.  What do they mean, if not that somehow our membership is threatened if we give the "wrong" answer to this question?

That's a real question, not rhetorical, so I'd appreciate an answer from somebody. What do they mean? How exactly would we lose any particular benefit or group of benefits of EU membership? If they're going to threaten me with this, I need the specifics. It's important stuff as I make up my mind on the future of my family and my country.

Goodluck with that. Apparently it's the No side have to answer all questions. I asked that question on the second page and have been trying to answer it since.

Zap i answered your questions. And Yes the No side do have alot of questions to answer as they were the ones who rejected the last treaty and lied on certain issue to get that vote.

[Hardy]

Tankie, with all due respect, you're talking paranoid shite and not answering my questions. Again, what do the government mean when they say our position in Europe is threatened? How, exactly?

You go on about influence and Ireland being told to shag off if we go looking for money. You ask "how do you think out minister will be treated when they go looking for funding etc?" I'm afraid it's you who doesn't understand how it works. Anything we're entitled to we get. If we're not entitled, we don't get. It's not done by nod and wink or even by vote. For instance, who votes on whether we should receive a particular tranche of funds? Nobody, that's who. The policy is proposed by the commission and approved by the council of Minister under the voting arrangements in place under the Nice Treaty. Then funds are allocated in accordance with that policy. It's not like an Irish County Council, despite the fact that FF want us to think they wield extraordinary influence in Brussels because they're great crack and always stand their round or something. Bullshit.

The notion that voting No will keep things the same is ridiculous as the EU will then have to fully enforce the nice treaty which will mean Ireland loses its commissioner which was a big issue for the No side.

That's an amazing piece of footwork. It's not the 'No' side that's proposing a change, it's the 'Yes' side - remember? I'm perfectly happy with the Nice Treaty.

So, how about the answers to my questions - anyone - not just Tankie? How, exactly, would we be deprived of the benefits of EU membership by failing to give the answer the politicians want? What mechanism would be employed to deprive us of these benefits? (If you cite "loss of influence", please at least be good enough to  define "influence" and precisely how it works at EU commission, parliament and Council of Ministers level). And how would we be isolated from global markets if we're still members of the EU and if we're not, how exactly were we expelled?

Anyone?

[Tankie]

Hardy if you are happy with the Nice treaty I assume you dont have an issue with Ireland losing a commissioner which was a very big issue for the No side last time around?

[Hardy]

No problem at all. There were many strands to the 'No' side. See my first [Edit - sorry - second] post in this thread for my take on it.

My questions?

[Tankie]

No problem at all. There were many strands to the 'No' side. See my first [Edit - sorry - second] post in this thread for my take on it.

My questions?

I fail to see how you are voting no on the basis of you giving up power but you are happy to just give up a commissioner?

[Hardy]

It's very simple (and I don't have any more time for this now). The Irish commissioner doesn't represent Ireland - it's just the general clientelist parish pump concept of politics prevalent in this country that sees his job as somehow fighting Ireland's corner. So I wouldn't be "giving up" a commissioner. Irrelevant to the debate in my opinion. I have taken some pains to explain why I'm voting no. Those reasons are sufficient without you making up other ones I must also subscribe to if I vote 'No'.

And - in passing - I don't see why 'No' people must be accused of supporting Sinn Féin or Ganley or some tree-dwelling crusty commune in Wicklow (or all three) when nobody accuses, say Labour party members of being FF supporters just because they make common cause on this one issue.

[Farrandeelin]

It is also awful the way the other 26 countries of the EU are denied the vote on Lisbon. I am suspicious that the governments are afraid that it may well be rejected across Europe and they didn't have the same clause in their constitutions that we did in being enabled to vote on the matter. That was the other reason I voted no the first time.

[Pangurban]

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cant fool all of the people all of the time. This elitist excuse for a treaty, whose only selling point is fear of the alternative, and whose marketing technique is bullying and bribery, will not pass the plain people of Ireland. The people of the other sovereign nations of Europe, whose own governments feared to give them a voice, are depending on us to hold the line for genuine democracy

[Tankie]

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cant fool all of the people all of the time. This elitist excuse for a treaty, whose only selling point is fear of the alternative, and whose marketing technique is bullying and bribery, will not pass the plain people of Ireland. The people of the other sovereign nations of Europe, whose own governments feared to give them a voice, are depending on us to hold the line for genuine democracy

A statement like that assume the people read the treaty and from what i recall there were a huge amount of people who voted No because they either did not read it or understand it, also the lies from the No side was another big factor in people voting No.

Don't kid yourself that the Irish people are that bright were they feel this is undemocratic!