Why are YOU voting no ?

pencil

Any opinions on this Libertas Organisation?

I'm just beginning to educate myself about Lisbon. If I can determine a 'vested interest' I can then decide if I want to listen or not. This may seem crude to the more politically involved... but it helps me filter the masses of content out there. From my reading in the past hour Libertas seem like a 'paid for big business VI'. Having just finished 'The Shock Doctrine' and been shocked by it, if this indymedia article and this Independent one are correct, then they do not represent by political tastes.

Opinions?

pencil

sink wrote: »

Unfortunately you have been misled in regards to military spending. The exact wording of the treaty obliges us to improve our military capability, this does not necessarily entail more spending. Improving capability can be done by redeploying existing funds to buy better equipment or to improve training all with no added bill to the tax payer.

Oh okay... more reading to do... just beginning to find out about Lisbon. Although 'improve' does suggest 'more money' to me, and in reality would probably mean more money.

sink

pencil wrote: »

Any opinions on this Libertas Organisation?

I'm just beginning to educate myself about Lisbon. If I can determine a 'vested interest' I can then decide if I want to listen or not. This may seem crude to the more politically involved... but it helps me filter the masses of content out there. From my reading in the past hour Libertas seem like a 'paid for big business VI'. Having just finished 'The Shock Doctrine' and been shocked by it, if this indymedia article and this Independent one are correct, then they do not represent by political tastes.

Opinions?

The facts in both those article are true afaik, but the conclusion drawn by either of them is a matter of opinion. I for one cannot see the CIA funding Libertas, it would be too risky politically. The US has few enough friends in Europe as it is, it would not be doing itself any favours by alienating itself further.

democrates

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

VRT was an obvious replacement for import duty on cars and anyone who says otherwise is talking sheeite.

That drove me mad at the time too, but after thinking about it there's another angle :

The motor manufacturers sell cars at different prices to different countries, based on what they think the market will bear and taking into consideration duty/vrt or whatever the local regime.

If the government did not replace import duty with vrt, it's very possible the car manufacturers would have upped their supply price to Ireland and we'd pay the same end price on the forecourt anyway.

At least instead of a chunk of what we pay for a car going as pure profit for the companies, it goes into the exchequer for schools roads hospitals etc.

Just a theory.

Hotblack Desiato

sink wrote: »

I for one cannot see the CIA funding Libertas, it would be too risky politically. The US has few enough friends in Europe as it is, it would not be doing itself any favours by alienating itself further.

Not to express an opinion either way on the truth of that, but surely everything the CIA does is too risky politically - that's the reason it exists, to do covertly what is unacceptable overtly. The politicians hope nobody finds out until long after they're retired (assuming they actually knew what the CIA was up to.) Like I said, I don't know if there is any truth in it but if there is, it wouldn't surprise me one bit. Oh and if opinion of the US is really that low, they have little to lose...

democrates

pencil wrote: »

Any opinions on this Libertas Organisation?

I'm just beginning to educate myself about Lisbon. If I can determine a 'vested interest' I can then decide if I want to listen or not. This may seem crude to the more politically involved... but it helps me filter the masses of content out there. From my reading in the past hour Libertas seem like a 'paid for big business VI'. Having just finished 'The Shock Doctrine' and been shocked by it, if this indymedia article and this Independent one are correct, then they do not represent by political tastes.

Opinions?

The plot thickens. IMHO the balance of probability is that Ganley and McEvaddy are dyed in the wool military-industrial-complex profiteers acting in the interests of their US paymasters (and thereby their own interests) to stymie the EU's geopolitical power ambitions.

There are people like that in Europe too, obviously with converse lucrative contract loyalties, but we don't see them setting up a campaign group. This level of politicisation and covert ops if it is the real story sure fits with US behaviour in a host of other theatres. Obama can do a Herod later, no matter what transpires on this or any other topic, it can be spun as the old way, gone with the adminstration he replaces.

Ultimately, the motivations of Libertas leaders don't affect my consideration, I'll still vote no for other reasons as outlined.

jmayo

pencil wrote: »

Any opinions on this Libertas Organisation?

I'm just beginning to educate myself about Lisbon. If I can determine a 'vested interest' I can then decide if I want to listen or not. This may seem crude to the more politically involved... but it helps me filter the masses of content out there. From my reading in the past hour Libertas seem like a 'paid for big business VI'. Having just finished 'The Shock Doctrine' and been shocked by it, if this indymedia article and this Independent one are correct, then they do not represent by political tastes.

Opinions?

For God's sake do not rely on indymedia for anything, their articles are usually coloured by their own agendas.
Not sure about the indo anymore sine they hired the likes of Myers and it's sister paper the sunday indo has become a rag that made licking the ass off bertie a weekly event.

The guys in Libertas are linked to companies that are contracted to the US military and it does lead to quiet a few questions regarding why they are so anti treaty.
Maybe there is a US military industry attempt to prevent a united European military that would probably limit purchasing to European manufacturers (e,g FN, BAE, Dassault, EADS etc) in the long run.

But then again I also question the motives of our own politicans that are champing at the bit for a yes vote.

nesf

jmayo wrote: »

But then again I also question the motives of our own politicans that are champing at the bit for a yes vote.

But those politicians will still be around after this referendum. Libertas won't. Politicians have some interest in not actively screwing over the country simply because it'll come back to bite them if the public figures it out before the next election. Libertas on the other hand don't have to deal with the political consequences of a No vote at all. I wouldn't trust our average TD any further than I could throw them but at least you can be fairly sure they are looking out for themselves as much as the public and in cases like this, they benefit from us benefiting. A Treaty that makes life worse here will not be something they want to be associated with come the next local, national and European elections. They aren't stupid.

Libertas will disappear after this referendum and don't have to reap what they sow, why anyone would even remotely trust them I don't understand.

po0k

sink wrote: »

Unfortunately you have been misled in regards to military spending. The exact wording of the treaty obliges us to improve our military capability, this does not necessarily entail more spending. Improving capability can be done by redeploying existing funds to buy better equipment or to improve training all with no added bill to the tax payer.

And that re-factoring of existing funds requires a pan-european treaty to happen why?

My main problem with this whole treaty is that it appears t be overwhelmingly pro-big business, big country, replacing a union of member states with 1person-1-vote á la federation.

Course, the no vote seems to have the potential to tear apart Europe.

There is no sensible middle ground here.
I have never seen any wide-scale public opinion survey on what people want 'Europe' to be in the future, what people actually want to happen.
The increasing consolidation of power and isolation of the decision making process from the people it affects is a folly doomed to failure, corruption and exploitation.

Why did the Irish Government request that the French withhold the memo on the ECT? We the proletariat can't be trusted?

I have no problem with taxation, as long as it's spent properly.
I have zero faith that this will happen.
Where is the pan-european energy framework?
Where is our energy intergrid?
When will we see large-scale implementations of passive micro-generation from ambient renewable energy sources?
Why aren't major infrastructural projects being undertaken to make us sustainably energy self-sufficient?
Because there are industrial lobby groups who want the playing field adjusted to their advantage.

Call Me Jimmy

nesf wrote: »

But those politicians will still be around after this referendum. Libertas won't. Politicians have some interest in not actively screwing over the country simply because it'll come back to bite them if the public figures it out before the next election. Libertas on the other hand don't have to deal with the political consequences of a No vote at all. I wouldn't trust our average TD any further than I could throw them but at least you can be fairly sure they are looking out for themselves as much as the public and in cases like this, they benefit from us benefiting. A Treaty that makes life worse here will not be something they want to be associated with come the next local, national and European elections. They aren't stupid.

Libertas will disappear after this referendum and don't have to reap what they sow, why anyone would even remotely trust them I don't understand.

This is one of the points I have been making. It is in the politician's interest that in this case where they don't gain anything from the country voting yes and then the country loses rights such as the corporate tax rates and anti-abortion legislation etc. who do you think is going to get blamed and lose their job then? But if it turns out to not be the doom and gloom treaty what reward do they get? Not much if any because there won't be any news headline about it.

jmayo

nesf wrote: »

But those politicians will still be around after this referendum. Libertas won't. Politicians have some interest in not actively screwing over the country simply because it'll come back to bite them if the public figures it out before the next election. Libertas on the other hand don't have to deal with the political consequences of a No vote at all. I wouldn't trust our average TD any further than I could throw them but at least you can be fairly sure they are looking out for themselves as much as the public and in cases like this, they benefit from us benefiting. A Treaty that makes life worse here will not be something they want to be associated with come the next local, national and European elections. They aren't stupid.

Libertas will disappear after this referendum and don't have to reap what they sow, why anyone would even remotely trust them I don't understand.

nesf I will agree with you to a degree.
But what has been becoming apparent over the last few years is that some politicans, primarily those in power and reasonably high up the totem pole, have become very arrogant and condescending towards the people.
Just look at the "whingers" comment by our new minister for finance.
Look at some of the statements made by our ex taoiseach concerning whingers, begrudgers, ludities etc.
They believe they know better and then label anyone that doesn't tow their line as been stupid, narrowminded, etc

I look on the conglomerate on the NO side and I wouldn't agree with any of their normal principles or agendas.
I don't trust the Libertas group, Sinn Fein who have suddently become concerned about militarisation and protective of our low corpo tax, or the other usually mad loonies concerned about abortion, neutrality etc

On the Yes side I do not trust our own shower of eejits in the Dail and SEanad, the EU leaders, commissioners (particularly the slimey failure from UK) and the beaurocrats in Brussels or Strasbourg.
They decide too many things without any say so from ordinary European citizens. (yes you will argue that EU parliament will get more power but what percentage of that will be ours, how many MEPS will we have ?).
There has been an agenda for a long time to create a federal united states of Europe.
The bigger this gets, the more integrated this gets, the more we move to the peripheral of a large united Europe and the smaller our voice gets.
One point I take great issue with is the courting of Turkey as a possible EU member. Certain people in EU want them in and it seems that they don't care that a lot of citizens in a lot of EU states do not.
But will they listen or will they dismiss these people as racists and xenophobic nationalists ?
Probably the latter.

When they say that the EU will be more efficient, is that the same way that the HSE is was going to make the whole delivery of health care in this country more efficient ?

EDIT: maybe this has more in common with the act of union than we care to think ?

nesf

jmayo wrote: »

I look on the conglomerate on the NO side and I wouldn't agree with any of their normal principles or agendas.
I don't trust the Libertas group, Sinn Fein who have suddently become concerned about militarisation and protective of our low corpo tax, or the other usually mad loonies concerned about abortion, neutrality etc

On the Yes side I do not trust our own shower of eejits in the Dail and SEanad, the EU leaders, commissioners (particularly the slimey failure from UK) and the beaurocrats in Brussels or Strasbourg.

The thing is, when I look at the conglomerate of the Yes and No side, the single biggest outstanding point is that No side is almost entirely made up of groups who don't lose all that much by the No vote being bad for the country. The Yes side is made up of groups that do stand to lose a lot if the Yes vote is bad for the country, they have a myriad of problems and marks against them, don't get me wrong but the stark truth is, if this country goes to ****, it'll only improve the lot of the Socialist Party, Sinn Fein and the assorted minor parties of discontent with our present system. If this country goes to **** it'll seriously damage all of the mainstream political parties and especially IBEC and the main unions.

If there was genuinely a good chance of a No vote being good for the country, why would all the major opposition parties, business groups and nearly all of the major unions be campaigning for a Yes? For all their problems, and our political parties have a lot of them, they aren't all complete muppets.

nesf

democrates wrote: »

That drove me mad at the time too, but after thinking about it there's another angle :

The motor manufacturers sell cars at different prices to different countries, based on what they think the market will bear and taking into consideration duty/vrt or whatever the local regime.

If the government did not replace import duty with vrt, it's very possible the car manufacturers would have upped their supply price to Ireland and we'd pay the same end price on the forecourt anyway.

At least instead of a chunk of what we pay for a car going as pure profit for the companies, it goes into the exchequer for schools roads hospitals etc.

Just a theory.

It's similar to the argument about abolishing Stamp Duty a few years ago. If Stamp Duty was removed, builders would just have raised their prices. If you were capable of paying 300K for the house, and 30K in Stamp Duty, you'd be able to pay 330K for the house if Stamp Duty was abolished. I'm generally in favour of lower taxes but in cases like this, I'd prefer the Exchequer to get the extra 30K than the builder tbh. It was same when they cut VAT by half a percentage point a few years back, shops just added .5% to all their prices.

At least with the new VRT, the Exchequer and not car dealerships get the money that was tax before and it creates a strong incentive for people to buy cars with better fuel efficiency and lower emissions which is something that is a good thing really.

johnnyq

nesf wrote: »

The thing is, when I look at the conglomerate of the Yes and No side, the single biggest outstanding point is that No side is almost entirely made up of groups who don't lose all that much by the No vote being bad for the country.

They have loads to lose. If this treaty does go through, the vision towards a non-militarised Europe (which many think is a good thing) is in tatters. That is why the Peace and Neutrality Alliance is against the Treaty. And that's just for starters

The Yes side is made up of groups that do stand to lose a lot if the Yes vote is bad for the country, they have a myriad of problems and marks against them, don't get me wrong but the stark truth is, if this country goes to ****, it'll only improve the lot of the Socialist Party, Sinn Fein and the assorted minor parties of discontent with our present system

.

Sinn Fein advocated a NO vote to the Nice Treaty and when it was rejected the first time and since I certainly haven't seen Sinn Fein exactly pick up seats in the last election they in fact lost one.

Your argument is pure scare-tactics. FF were still the main party after the Nice vote after all the predicted doom then and I bet they still will be after this vote too.

People have very valid concerns about the road this treaty will lead Europe and to threaten them only copperfastens their concerns.

If this country goes to **** it'll seriously damage all of the mainstream political parties and especially IBEC and the main unions.

More of it....

If there was genuinely a good chance of a No vote being good for the country, why would all the major opposition parties, business groups and nearly all of the major unions be campaigning for a Yes? For all their problems, and our political parties have a lot of them, they aren't all complete muppets

But 'nearly all' unions are not in favour. The ICTU vote which by a slim minority accepted it left out loads of unions which abstained.
I don't see SIPTU telling everyone to vote yes for instance.
The farmers only said yes after they had to literally wrestle a concession off Biffo.

Why the main parties?
FG are the most pro-Euro party in Ireland, they're hardly if ever advocate a no on any EU issue.
FF negotiated the constitution ffs
Why labour support it is beyond me and as being part of their vote base I certainly don't understand it (as don't other supporters). Political bargaining rules the day, now that's something to vote yes for isn't it.:rolleyes:

oscarBravo

johnnyq wrote: »

Why labour support it is beyond me and as being part of their vote base I certainly don't understand it (as don't other supporters).

With respect, it would probably be a good idea to find out why they support it. While you're at it, you could find out why pretty much all labour parties, unions and left-wing movements across Europe are also in favour of the Treaty.

nesf

johnnyq wrote: »

They have loads to lose. If this treaty does go through, the vision towards a non-militarised Europe (which many think is a good thing) is in tatters. That is why the Peace and Neutrality Alliance is against the Treaty. And that's just for starters

You missed my point. Those groups for the most part won't be held accountable for the results of a Yes or No vote. Mainstream political parties on the other hand will.


How is my argument scare tactics? I'm pointing out that the groups with the most to lose politically are on the yes side. This is a fact and a telling one at that.

johnnyq

nesf wrote: »

You missed my point. Those groups for the most part won't be held accountable for the results of a Yes or No vote. Mainstream political parties on the other hand will.

Is that why they played the safe card and are all advocating a yes vote? :rolleyes:

nesf wrote:

How is my argument scare tactics?

You made several implicit references to 'if this country goes to ****' while refering to a no vote. On reread, to be fair you do mention the consequence for the main parties if they have been found to be supporting a **** yes vote, so i appologise for any overreaction.

Oscar Bravo wrote:

With respect, it would probably be a good idea to find out why they support it. While you're at it, you could find out why pretty much all labour parties, unions and left-wing movements across Europe are also in favour of the Treaty.

I have done research and I am generally unhappy with the claims some of those groups make (~militarisation) which don't fit with my views or have found them to be inconsistent or unconvincing.

nesf

johnnyq wrote: »

Is that why they played the safe card and are all advocating a yes vote? :rolleyes:

What do you mean by "safe card"?

johnnyq wrote: »

You made several implicit references to 'if this country goes to ****' while refering to a no vote. On reread, to be fair you do mention the consequence for the main parties if they have been found to be supporting a **** yes vote, so i appologise for any overreaction.

I wasn't trying to say that a No vote will mean the country goes to ****. I was saying that if a No vote would have this effect a lot of the groups advocating a No wouldn't end up being accountable. If a Yes vote had this effect the mainstream parties would be crucified for it in the local elections next year and possibly in the next general election if things went badly enough.

johnnyq

nesf wrote: »

What do you mean by "safe card"?

I think we can agree that most people are never going to vote Sinn Fein because of their past etc....
The safe card means that no political party (fingers pointing at the greens/labour here) was brave enough to advocate a no vote which would be possible to allow given what they believe. This forum has established there are valid reasons for voting no but these parties haven't availed of them instead tying themselves to FF/FG etc... imo.
When it comes to the election all parties are aware that since they all were on the same side that the electorate have essentially no choice. It's not like people can elect to have no politicians.
This may fall into the realms of conspiracy theories but really if the treaty is voted through and it is ****, who can voters turn to for change? As we have discovered none of the political parties.

I wasn't trying to say that a No vote will mean the country goes to ****. I was saying that if a No vote would have this effect a lot of the groups advocating a No wouldn't end up being accountable. If a Yes vote had this effect the mainstream parties would be crucified for it in the local elections next year and possibly in the next general election if things went badly enough.

Ah, Ok I take that point on board. But to be fair, the celebrities who I mention in my sig will be remembered too but they won't have the comfort of political parties behind them.

oscarBravo

johnnyq wrote: »

This forum has established there are valid reasons for voting no...

Honestly, I think the only one I've seen that I would consider at all valid is murphaph's. I don't agree with it, but it's a pretty valid reason.

nesf

johnnyq wrote: »

I think we can agree that most people are never going to vote Sinn Fein because of their past etc....

Or their crazy-ass economic policies for that matter...

johnnyq wrote: »

The safe card means that no political party (fingers pointing at the greens/labour here) was brave enough to advocate a no vote which would be possible to allow given what they believe.

Is it not also possible that they on balance believe that a Yes vote is a better choice given what they believe? They are, as parties, in a much better position than you or I to judge these things given their access to experienced political people who have done work on treaties like these and professional legal advice on interpretations of the individual bits and pieces.

johnnyq wrote: »

Ah, Ok I take that point on board. But to be fair, the celebrities who I mention in my sig will be remembered too but they won't have the comfort of political parties behind them.

Those celebrities won't lose their jobs because of what happens, they are celebrities for things other than their political opinions and honestly, give it six months and few people will remember they said anything. Politicians on the other hand can look forward to it coming back to haunt them for the rest of their political lives if they get it very wrong.

What Vision?

I found this web site very useful, it by the referendum commission, http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/ it helped me decide on what way I'm going to vote.

I just hope people read this site.

alexanderomahon

I will not vote yes because I see no reason to. I am happy with what we have. I like that we have a commissioner and I don't want europe more streamlined, because I don't want eu institutions to have a greater say in Ireland's affairs.

the arrangements to date have worked very well for us. Why change?

oscarBravo

alexanderomahon wrote: »

I will not vote yes because I see no reason to. I am happy with what we have. I like that we have a commissioner...

Whom we'll lose five years earlier if we reject the treaty.

...and I don't want europe more streamlined, because I don't want eu institutions to have a greater say in Ireland's affairs.

the arrangements to date have worked very well for us.

Am I the only one that sees a contradiction here? The EU has worked very well for us, but I don't want that pesky EU meddling in our affairs. Huh?

Why change?

Change is a given. If we don't ratify Lisbon, the EU will change anyway, one way or another. Despite vague claims to the contrary, this treaty is a good deal for Ireland, and there's no reason to believe any future arrangements will make for a better deal.

alexanderomahon

oscarBravo wrote: »

Am I the only one that sees a contradiction here? The EU has worked very well for us, but I don't want that pesky EU meddling in our affairs. Huh?

Why is this a huh? It is a fact that we gained from the economic union - I do not wish to increase eu say in our affairs any more than is the current situation. It is not my fault if you find that difficult to understand.



Change is a given. If we don't ratify Lisbon, the EU will change anyway, one way or another. Despite vague claims to the contrary, this treaty is a good deal for Ireland, and there's no reason to believe any future arrangements will make for a better deal.

so according to you we should just say yes,because if we don't it will happen anyway! Great advert that is for european democracy.

Our constitution has given us a democratic mandate to vote on this. Why are the other countries in the EU not getting a vote? We all know why and that is that the political elites know what would happen. Where is the democray?

johnnyskeleton

I would consider myself fairly pro-Europe, to the extent that I don't see a large federal Europe as a bad thing.

However, I find the idea of voting yes repugnant for a number of reasons:
1) politicians are trying to bully us into it, and I can't stand this
2) we have not been given any concrete reasons to vote yes
3) it's the constitution in all but name, and this was rejected by the french and duth people
4) I don't see why they couldn't create a consolidated version of the ToA to incorporate the changes
5) I don't see why each of the 27 countries cannot have at least 1 permanent commissioner. I mean, if Ireland has 157 people making its decisions, I don't see why a group of c. 50 commissioners having a major role in it's governance is excessive
6) I don't think the charter of fundamental rights is well drafted, I believe it should be as close to the UNCHR & ECHR as possible.

However, I find the idea of voting no equally repugnant:
1) I don't think we should as a nation stand in the way of progress and I believe some structural reform is necessary
2) I don't like libertas and SF
3) most of what the no side say is rubbish
4) I am not opposed to abortion and gay marriage (I know they are not included but they are a tenant of the opposition)

So all told, I think I'm going to have to vote Mickey Mouse. Or better yet, seeing as how I will have to get up very early to vote, I'll vote for an extra hour in bed this thursday.

Which, by the way things are looking in the polls, means I get to vote no without actually lifting a finger.

oscarBravo

alexanderomahon wrote: »

so according to you we should just say yes,because if we don't it will happen anyway! Great advert that is for european democracy.

Jesus. There's very little I hate more than saying "A", and someone quoting me and saying "so what you're saying is 'B'...".

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it's naive and stupid to work on the assumption that a "no" vote copperfastens the status quo. Twenty-seven member states spent years working out ways of improving how the union works. It's utterly unrealistic to think that they're all going to shrug and say "ok, fair enough" if we say no.

That doesn't mean that the same changes will be implemented if we vote no. It means that something will happen, and as of right now, we don't know what.

Our constitution has given us a democratic mandate to vote on this. Why are the other countries in the EU not getting a vote?

Every EU member state has a vote on this. All the others have seen fit not to put it to a referendum.

johnnyskeleton

alexanderomahon wrote: »

Our constitution has given us a democratic mandate to vote on this. Why are the other countries in the EU not getting a vote? We all know why and that is that the political elites know what would happen. Where is the democray?

No, because our constitution was drafted by an idealist with little legal knowledge, and a clever dick called Crotty came along and won a court case that found that because of the wording of our Constitution, we need a referrendum for every EU treaty.

oscarBravo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

1) politicians are trying to bully us into it, and I can't stand this

So ignore them, and everyone trying to bully (and deceive) you into a no vote.

2) we have not been given any concrete reasons to vote yes

With all due respect, if you think this, you haven't been paying attention. Search this forum for posts by sink.

3) it's the constitution in all but name, and this was rejected by the french and duth people

It's not the Constitution in all but name. It contains substantive changes, many of which explicitly address many of the concerns that led to a rejection of the Constitution.

4) I don't see why they couldn't create a consolidated version of the ToA to incorporate the changes

What's the difference?

5) I don't see why each of the 27 countries cannot have at least 1 permanent commissioner. I mean, if Ireland has 157 people making its decisions, I don't see why a group of c. 50 commissioners having a major role in it's governance is excessive

First, the 27 countries have agreed (in the Nice treaty) that they don't need 27 commissioners. Second, the Commission is the equivalent of a cabinet, not a parliament, and it doesn't have enough useful ministries to go around.

However, I find the idea of voting no equally repugnant:
1) I don't think we should as a nation stand in the way of progress and I believe some structural reform is necessary

This I agree with.

2) I don't like libertas and SF

This isn't a good reason for a yes vote.

3) most of what the no side say is rubbish

This is.

4) I am not opposed to abortion and gay marriage (I know they are not included but they are a tenant of the opposition)

That's brainwashing at work. If they're not relevant, they shouldn't factor into your criteria at all.

alexanderomahon

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No, because our constitution was drafted by an idealist with little legal knowledge, and a clever dick called Crotty came along and won a court case that found that because of the wording of our Constitution, we need a referrendum for every EU treaty.

You never answered my question. Why are other countries not getting a vote? Don't say it's because there gaovernment system doesn't require one. The truth is becuase it woul dnot pass and you know that.