Does it really matter what way we vote on Lisbon - eg Nice

BigglesMcGee

Remember when people voted no to the Nice treaty?
I voted yes and the majority said NO.

But I dont feel the process is fair at all since all that happened was - "WRONG ANSWER, VOTE AGAIN".

Thats hardly fair now is it.

Will it be the same this time?

sink

The main no campaign focused on a percieved threat to "neutrality". The was a clarification added to the refferendum the second time that Irish neutrality would not be affected. The majority of people did vote for it that time. I don't see the problem.

ixtlan

If there is a no vote, the civil service and politicans of Europe will have to try to figure out why people voted no and then tweak the treaty for a re-vote.

There isn't anything unfair about this.

Unfortunately if you look at what the no side has mostly focused on it would seem the answer would be treaty additions/protocols that say..

"yes, we really really do mean you set your own corp tax rates".
"yes, we really do mean that every country in Europe can be overrun by an enemy and we do not expect you to assist in any way"
"yes, we really do mean that Ireland can block the EU from attacking anyone else (but NATO can do what it wants).

This should not be a problem since that's the situation anyhow but it would be embarassing that Ireland did not trust this to be true.

Ix.

oscarBravo

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

Remember when people voted no to the Nice treaty?

Clearly, better than you do.

But I dont feel the process is fair at all since all that happened was - "WRONG ANSWER, VOTE AGAIN".

Nope, that's not what happened.

As always, I'm amazed that people continue to express the view that Irish people are this stupid.

towel401

its like the only thing voting no will ever get you is another referendum. and most people will vote yes the second time around on the guilt trip

"europe has done so much for us, you should be glad to give up some power to help the likes of germany and france. you are holding europe back by voting no, shame on you!"

berliner

sink wrote: »

The main no campaign focused on a percieved threat to "neutrality". The was a clarification added to the refferendum the second time that Irish neutrality would not be affected. The majority of people did vote for it that time. I don't see the problem.

The problem is you can't ask people to vote again until you get the result you want.The EU thing is undemocratic and bad for Ireland.

the_syco

berliner wrote: »

The EU thing is undemocratic and bad for Ireland.

But the EU thing gives us money to build roads.

=-=

Oh, and at the moment, Germany has two European ambassadors. With this treaty, they get one, and, like us, they loose him for 5 years every 10 years, I think.

sink

berliner wrote: »

The problem is you can't ask people to vote again until you get the result you want.The EU thing is undemocratic and bad for Ireland.

Rubbish, if the people don't want it they can still vote it down again. It's like asking someone "do you want chocolate cake?", and they say no they're allergic to nuts. So if you go off and check that are no nuts in any of the ingredients you can't offer them cake again because they turned it down the first time? Even if they might now want it? You can't argue that we don't get a say the second time round.

towel401

except just before the re-run they have a huge campaign trying to convince us that we do want this new treaty because of all the good things that are supposed happen, and they forget about the bad things like ireland losing more power to the EU

its like Cowen comes back from his bigshot buddies in Europe with a new treaty in his hands and tries to convince us we want it, and if we don't want it they will try and get us to let it through on the guilt trip. the government shouldn't be doing this sort of thing - we should be telling them what kind of treaty we want.

sink

towel401 wrote: »

except just before the re-run they have a huge campaign trying to convince us that we do want this new treaty because of all the good things that are supposed happen, and they forget about the bad things like ireland losing more power to the EU

its like Cowen comes back from his bigshot buddies in Europe with a new treaty in his hands and tries to convince us we want it, and if we don't want it they will try and get us to let it through on the guilt trip. the government shouldn't be doing this sort of thing - we should be telling them what kind of treaty we want.

If more people felt the same they would have voted for Sinn Fein, the Socialist party and others who are more Euro sceptic. But they didn't so....

And I think you're not giving the Irish public enough credit, they're not going to vote for something out of guilt if they don't htink it would be good for them.

sink

Besides virtually the same amount of people voted no the second time. Just many, many more voted yes. So I doubt anyone switched their vote out of guilt.

berliner

the_syco wrote: »

But the EU thing gives us money to build roads.

=-=

Oh, and at the moment, Germany has two European ambassadors. With this treaty, they get one, and, like us, they loose him for 5 years every 10 years, I think.

The EU gives us money to build roads but they have to be paid back.there's no such thing as a free lunch.We should have stayed out of the EU and borrowed the money to build our county just like the vast majority of nations in the world.Don't be fooled by the EU propaganda machine.

berliner

sink wrote: »

Besides virtually the same amount of people voted no the second time. Just many, many more voted yes. So I doubt anyone switched their vote out of guilt.

It was wrong an undemocratic to ask a second time.It did huge damage to the whole EU sham.

Scofflaw

berliner wrote: »

The EU gives us money to build roads but they have to be paid back.there's no such thing as a free lunch.We should have stayed out of the EU and borrowed the money to build our county just like the vast majority of nations in the world.Don't be fooled by the EU propaganda machine.

Er, no. Structural funds are not loans. They do not have to be "paid back".

It was wrong an undemocratic to ask a second time.It did huge damage to the whole EU sham.

Funnily enough, I voted No first time in Nice - because the government made no attempt to explain the Treaty. I voted Yes the second time, after the government made the effort to explain the Treaty, and because there were additional safeguards in the second amendment. Obviously, I feel that the second vote made as much sense as the first - but I can understand that someone who was going to vote No would feel that they were "cheated".

cordially,
Scofflaw

berliner

Scofflaw wrote: »

Er, no. Structural funds are not loans. They do not have to be "paid back".



Funnily enough, I voted No first time in Nice - because the government made no attempt to explain the Treaty. I voted Yes the second time, after the government made the effort to explain the Treaty, and because there were additional safeguards in the second amendment. Obviously, I feel that the second vote made as much sense as the first - but I can understand that someone who was going to vote No would feel that they were "cheated".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Must go into the bank tomorrow and ask for a "Structural Loan". Ah yes, I can see why you voted yes.The innocence of you.

towel401

berliner wrote: »

The EU gives us money to build roads but they have to be paid back.there's no such thing as a free lunch.We should have stayed out of the EU and borrowed the money to build our county just like the vast majority of nations in the world.Don't be fooled by the EU propaganda machine.

money for roads in return for bits of control over your country. its like they're buying shares in ireland.

yea we could pull out of the EU. but they have to do something very bad before that would happen. and it would be like pulling the ivy off an old and decrepit tree that is only being held up by the ivy. even if leaving the EU goes well for us the whole EU would likely crash behind us. it would put us right in the middle of a serious recession. even though it might be better in the long run, most people would rather see the assimilation continue.

Gu3rr1lla

It probably wont because it can forced upon us no matter what the Irish say. On February 10th the European Parliament voted not to respect the Irish outcome of the referendum! Here's a linky

sink

Gu3rr1lla wrote: »

It probably wont because it can forced upon us no matter what the Irish say. On February 10th the European Parliament voted not to respect the Irish outcome of the referendum! Here's a linky

The Corbett - De Vigo report report contained an amendment which asked that the parliament to "undertake to respect the outcome of the referendum in Ireland". This report was voted down but not because of this amendment.

Reports are not legislation and are not legally binding, they are tools of official communication.

The report itself was a discussion on how superior the failed constitution was in comparison to the reform treaty. If they had voted for it, it would have become part of official parliamentary communications to it's citizens, at a time when the reform treaty was being debated in national parliaments. This would have been completely unhelpful as the constitution was dead and the reform treaty is what we had to go with, plus it was completely pointless as it served no one.

BigglesMcGee

Dont vote the way the govt want and you have to do it again, more or less straight away.

Do vote the way they want and thats it, end of story, done and dusted.

The No camp cant get a second bite at the cherry, but the Yes camp can.

Moriarty

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

Dont vote the way the govt want and you have to do it again, more or less straight away.

Do vote the way they want and thats it, end of story, done and dusted.

The No camp cant get a second bite at the cherry, but the Yes camp can.

You seem surprised to be here so let me be the first to welcome you to a parliamentary democracy.

ixtlan

towel401 wrote: »

money for roads in return for bits of control over your country. its like they're buying shares in ireland.

A rather cynical view of the European project.

In my view...

Money for roads and other infrastructure so that your economy will be boosted and our people (Germany, France, UK and others) will have more business and jobs dealing with a wealthy Ireland.

Rules on the environment so that companies don't have a chance to re-locate to the countries that allow the most pollution, plus it's the right thing.

Rules on human rights and justice, because it's the right thing to do.

Now in effect we are investing in Eastern Europe, which we hope will benefit us in the longer term.

To respond to BigglesMcGee regarding the no group not getting a second chance if there is a yes vote. I respectfully disagree. Life is change. In another 5 or 10 years there will be another treaty. If something really does cause a problem, just make sure that your elected politicians know that they need to make the appropriate change in that next treaty. However based on past experience, as far as I am aware, there has never been any EU actions arising from a treaty that caused any public outrage.

Ix.

doonothing

ixtlan wrote: »

A rather cynical view of the European project.

In my view...

Money for roads and other infrastructure so that your economy will be boosted and our people (Germany, France, UK and others) will have more business and jobs dealing with a wealthy Ireland.

Rules on the environment so that companies don't have a chance to re-locate to the countries that allow the most pollution, plus it's the right thing.

Rules on human rights and justice, because it's the right thing to do.

Now in effect we are investing in Eastern Europe, which we hope will benefit us in the longer term.

To respond to BigglesMcGee regarding the no group not getting a second chance if there is a yes vote. I respectfully disagree. Life is change. In another 5 or 10 years there will be another treaty. If something really does cause a problem, just make sure that your elected politicians know that they need to make the appropriate change in that next treaty. However based on past experience, as far as I am aware, there has never been any EU actions arising from a treaty that caused any public outrage.

Ix.

Maybe not so much on the money for roads, bu can we not handle our own environment and human rights issues fine on our own? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just completely ignorant of the topic!
Someone badly needs to give me a hand with the issues of this treaty. So confused.

turgon

the_syco wrote: »

But the EU thing gives us money to build roads.

=-=

Oh, and at the moment, Germany has two European ambassadors. With this treaty, they get one, and, like us, they loose him for 5 years every 10 years, I think.

NOT TRUE. Germany has presently only 1 commissioner, not two.

the_syco

berliner wrote: »

We should have stayed out of the EU and borrowed the money to build our county just like the vast majority of nations in the world.Don't be fooled by the EU propaganda machine.

If a poor man goes into the bank, and tries to get a loan with f**k all assets, I don't think he could get a big loan.