So, this is my post about what way I am going to vote and why I am going to vote that way. As I have said a number of times, I like to make decisions based on exploring real data and information and not on the basis of supersition or gut-instinct or any of that old nonsense.
The Lisbon treaty does not make everybody happy, it does not contain all things to all people and indeed, there are a lot of things I would like to see it contain that it doesn’t - a statement of separation of church and state would be a good one for me and I have not heard that it contains such a statement - if it did, then we would have been sure to hear it. So, I don’t think it is a perfect document, but it is one of a series of documents and on the whole, it merits a yes vote from me.
The Lisbon Treaty seeks to regularise the workings of the EU and states explicitly what has really been the case for some time. It also introduces a few new things.
There will not be a new “President of Europe” there will be a president of the European Council who will be chosen by National leaders. So, the downside is that this is not a directly elected president, rather it is an appointed person and it replaces the presidency of europe position that changes every six months. This new person will be in place for 2 years. The first president will probably be Bertie Ahern or Tony Blair or the Danish guy Rasmussen. Downside: not directly elected like Bush was, upside: not elected like Bush was :) Anyway, I’m kind-of neutral on this one. I don’t see it as an undemocratic position for us to take. I’m happy enough for the leaders of the EU to choose a super-leader. We elected the king-makers, after all.
We loose a commissioner for five years out of 15. So do Germany. We are on an equal footing as Germany on this one. We are smaller in other voting rights, but I think this is to be expected. Could we do better if we rejected the treaty? Don’t know for sure. Would the rest of the countries go ahead without us and we would loose even more influence? Don’t know either. Overall verdict for me - we are possibly getting a good deal on this one and a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
There will be an EU rapid reaction force. About time, I say. Look at Kosovo!! We should have had this years ago. We cannot go to war without ALL nations being in agreement and the Irish Army is still triple-locked. This is a positive move and indeed, though I am not a warmonger, I feel we really need to have some EU army. We have a great democratic system in the EU and this rapid response force is a positive thing. After all, the reason the EU exists is to banish war on this continent again and if we are all in together, this must be positive. Conclusion: strong positive on this one.
Abortion will come in by the back door. I wrote about this yeaterday. This is scaremongering and entirely un-called for. I suspect that this will not only have influence on the socially conservative people, but it sends out the message that if you are socially conservative, then you should vote no - “The scaremongering is being done by one of our kind, so we should show solidarity”.
All our taxes will be harmonised. This will never happen. It doesn’t exist in the document and is another example of scaremongering. We have (almost) harmonised VAT rates, but corporate tax remains the prerogative of national governments.
We will have less influence individually. This is also incorrect. The EU was responsible for the Irish government brining in legislation that de-criminalised homosexuality. This was brought forward by a single person. The Lisbon Treaty contains the right of any individual to challenge any legislation brought into being by the EU. This directly places power in the hands of individuals. A single individual can change the EU.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights will, for the first time in the EU, be formally passed into law. This is a document that massively influences the safety and security of all individuals. This, alone, is a reason for voting in favour of the Lisbon Treaty.
So, vote yes, vote early and vote often 
6 users commented in " Why I’m voting YES for the Lisbon Treaty "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackHey I’m voting no so we’ll cancel each other out. We both might as well just not vote and the result will be the same anyway
Why no, Dave B?
Anyone with an inclination to vote “no” should quite seriously look at those that they will find by their sides on that side of the argument. A quick glance at those coming together to campaign against Lisbon reveals a collection of those organisations on the far-right and far-left of the Irish political spectrum.
Many of these organisations, such as Libertas and Sinn Féin, would happily have Ireland out of The E.U. altogether, or at least would like more detachment. While Sinn Féin oppose the Treaty out of sincere nationalist political views, the intentions of Libertas deserve more interrogation. This is a group that is investing €1.3 million into campaigning against the Treaty per week. However, they have no official employees, no financial statements and a very loose set of objectives as a political body. They are effectively a subsidiary of Rivada, an American company attached to the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the conservative think-tank that was behind much of the push for the Iraq War. Indeed, the CEO of Libertas, Mr. Declan Ganley, is a member of all three organisations. None of them will release any information on this man’s previous financial dealings, current wealth, political afilliations or exact role in their organisations. Yet he continues to bankroll the “No” campaign to the toll of €1.3 million every week from the start of Libertas’ campaigning in 2007.
It is inarguably shady business, made even more suspicious by the refusal of any company involved in financing the Libertas campaign to release information as to how much they are paying to it, let alone why they are doing so. This includes Rivada, who officially employ all of those people that claim now to be working for Libertas, including Executive Director Naoise Nunn. However, Rivada refuses to acknowledge any dealings between themselves and Libertas, Libertas’ CEO Mr. Ganley even went public last week to state that they were completely seperate organisations and that it would be “improper” for there to be a relationship between them. This despite the fact that Rivada has contributed a web-designer to make Libertas’ website, all of their employees and all of the funds for their offices and other tangible assets.
To those of you who intend to vote “No” to Lisbon because of frustration at the proposed “Mandelson Deal”, the vast majority of the “No” voting block, I sympathise with you. However, simply opposing the Treaty will not end this issue. Mandelson can be brought in without the Treaty, by assembly vote. It can be brought in through individual countries. If the Treaty is voted down then it will merely re-emerge (possibly in another form) as Nice did some years ago. The best method to tackle Mandelson with is to petition your politicians. Organise yourselves as you have for this “No” campaign and take Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour and The Green Party to task. Tell them that if they do not strenuosly oppose Mandelson that you will not vote for them in the forseeable elections. If you are a committed party member then abstain or spoil your ballot. The figures of spoilt ballots will send a strong message and the loss of key votes in competitive constituencies will hurt the parties more than a “No” vote in this referendum.
Please do not conflate the ideas of a rejection of this Treaty and an end to Mandelson. The “Mandelson Deal” will not be removed from European politics without political pressure and that is achieved only by petitioning your parties in a rigourous way and energising their MEPs against The Deal. A “No” vote here leaves our relationship with Europe stretched and we need The European Union in the future so that we can avail of the workers we need for the agricultural industry that many of you are involved in and as trading partners for the goods that industry produces. But a “No” vote also leaves Ireland more open to manipulation from shady characters like Ganley and shady organisations like his Libertas pressure group. Mr. Ganley is a businessman who has invested millions in this effort, it is only fair to assume that he has a future financial interest in this Treaty being rejected. However, he will not disclose what this is.It is therefore fair to assume that any man involed in the public arena of politics that does not want to disclose this has something to hide. What he has to hide is that his pals in Rivada and the FPRI have something to gain from a “No” vote. And anything that a group of arch neo-cons, with a capacity for as much lying and deception as mislead the American people before the Iraq War, has to gain from this will, undoubtedly be to the ordinary people of Ireland’s loss.
Think before you vote on this issue and when you do vote consider why the biggest group on the opposition side to the Treaty ran such a sercretive, suspicious campaign. Could it be potentially sinister motives? Don’t be mislead in the same way Americans were before Iraq by the same people. Petition your politicians and vote “Yes” to Lisbon.
Well said Rónán B. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Don’t be mislead in the same way Americans were before Iraq by the same people. Petition your politicians and vote “Yes” to Lisbon.
but those same (irish) politicians tried to mislead us into the same war on iraq
The major thing about this treaty is that nothing is clear. You mention that harmonisation of taxes will never happen, however this treaty does allow for it to possibly happen.
Straight from the referendum commissions handbook:
“The power to change from unanimity to Qualified Majority Voting or from the Special Legislative Procedure to a Ordinary Legislative Procedure does not extend to military and defence issues.
It could apply, for example, to taxation where unanimity is required at present. However as outlined earlier in this website, any such proposed change could be vetoed by the Irish government. ”
So in theory, it could happen and with our reducing power, we could be forced to harmonise taxes or at least change it.
I don’t see how you can’t see this treaty as being undemocratic. What’s democratic about a treaty that is more than 90% similar to a treaty that was opposed by countries with populations of more than 10 times of ours.
Neutrality is a big thing to me - I don’t see the need for a small country like us to get involved in other peoples wars.
For Ronan to call Libertas shady is quite laughable, we have an ex leader of this country only the other day announce that he won GBP£15k on the horses and forgot all about it until now….
I’m not against being part of the EU, but I don’t see anything positive about this treaty and to be honest, our own government to even seem to know what it’s all about.
I won’t use the phrase that Sinn Fein use, I think we all know it at this stage. But there’s simply something not right about this and we shouldn’t go into this with our eyes closed, which Charlie McCreevy expects us to.
I will be voting no - and the reason is because I don’t know enough. Too many “it will streamline the EU” without any substance.
The government have dealt with this very badly and will only have themselves to blame if it is rejected.