Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Equality for EU citizens means we should Vote No

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    sink wrote: »
    Lies were spread by people with an ulterior agenda and people who do no research themselves believe these lies, as you can see is happening in Ireland now.

    Oh and by the way this argument is rubbish. There is much more money being spent on the yes campaign than the 'No' one. All Major political parties are backing yes. If this was to be a fair referendum, equal money would be spent on each campaign.


  • Options
    #63
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    CNN wrote:
    The negative votes in the Netherlands and France were largely the result of poor economies, and concerns about immigration, EU expansion and the loss of national identity, said CNN European Political Editor Robin Oakley.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/06/01/dutch.poll/index.html
    WIKIPEDIA wrote:
    According to a poll by Maurice de Hond, 30 % of the Constitution's opponents used the referendum as an opportunity to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the government, instead of confining their deliberations to the contents of the treaty that was put before them. At the time of the referendum, the Netherlands' centre-right coalition government, led by Jan Peter Balkenende, was suffering a period of unpopularity as it tried to push through cuts in public spending, and there was widespread disillusion with the country's political elite.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_referendum_on_the_European_Constitution

    Here is a link to the poll itself
    https://n10.noties.nl/peil.nl/
    BBC wrote:
    Nico Smyders told the BBC he had voted "No" in part to register his opposition to the current Dutch government

    But the BBC's Geraldine Coughlan in The Hague says voters are unhappy about higher prices since the euro and discontented with the centre-right government.

    Many also feel threatened by what they see as a superstate that will interfere with liberal policies such as those on gay marriage and euthanasia.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4598229.stm

    I got all this from just a quick search, so i'm not basing my opinion on nothing. All the evidence points to my argument being right and I stand by it.


  • Options
    #64
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    Galliard wrote: »
    The arrogance is on parade again.

    Sorry, I was aiming for contempt. My apologies.
    Galliard wrote: »
    IRLConor loftily lectures us on how other people will interpret our vote.

    Where was this?
    Galliard wrote: »
    The message was clear in 1968.

    What was in 1968?


  • Options
    #65
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    sink wrote: »
    http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/06/01/dutch.poll/index.html



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_referendum_on_the_European_Constitution

    Here is a link to the poll itself
    https://n10.noties.nl/peil.nl/



    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4598229.stm

    I got all this from just a quick search, so i'm not basing my opinion on nothing. All the evidence points to my argument being right and I stand by it.

    Fine but democracy gives everyone a right to vote and they can vote for whatever they want, maybe if governements took more head of their people then they wouldn't be making protest votes?


  • Options
    #66
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    menoscemo wrote: »
    Oh and by the way this argument is rubbish. There is much more money being spent on the yes campaign than the 'No' one. All Major political parties are backing yes. If this was to be a fair referendum, equal money would be spent on each campaign.

    So you're arguing that our loss of neutrality, threat of legalised abortion, threat of a common corporate tax rate, our loss of power on the commission and not being allowed to vote on the EU ever again are all valid arguments?

    If it was to be a fair referendum all campaigning for either side would have to be banned and only the referendum commission would be allowed publish material on it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    menoscemo wrote: »
    The people in the other countries have no ability to fix what I am protesting against.

    But we do? How, pray tell?
    menoscemo wrote: »
    If they vote out said party of government the next one will do exactly the same thing.

    So you're arguing that we should vote no to Lisbon because the people of other countries are unable to form political parties that represent them? And you magically know that the poltical parties don't represent their people how?


  • Options
    #68
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    sink wrote: »
    So you're arguing that our loss of neutrality, threat of legalised abortion, threat of a common corporate tax rate, our loss of power on the commission and not being allowed to vote on the EU ever again are all valid arguments?

    I do not agree with most of these arguments TBH
    sink wrote: »
    If it was to be a fair referendum all campaigning for either side would have to be banned and only the referendum commission would be allowed publish material on it.

    I would agree with this.


  • Options
    #69
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    menoscemo wrote: »
    Fine but democracy gives everyone a right to vote and they can vote for whatever they want, maybe if governements took more head of their people then they wouldn't be making protest votes?

    Parliamentary democracy does not have to give people a vote on individual issues. Read more about it here.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system

    It sounds like you want a direct democracy which in my opinion would not be able to function.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy


  • Options
    #70
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    sink wrote: »
    Parliamentary democracy does not have to give people a vote on individual issues. Read more about it here.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system

    It sounds like you want a direct democracy which in my opinion would not be able to function.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

    Obviously we do not need to vote on every single issue but the Lisbon treaty is a bigger issue than most day-to day ones.
    The fact that countries voted no to the constitution and are now not getting a vote (on what is essentially a rehashed version of it IMO) smacks of political arrognace and frankly is dangerously undemocratic.

    I may not agree with many of the reasons why the Dutch and French voted no but that, frankly, is irrelevant. The fact is IMO that politicians all over Europe are being very conscending to their electorate and need to be put in check.


  • Options
    #71
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    menoscemo wrote: »
    Obviously we do not need to vote on every single issue but the Lisbon treaty is a bigger issue than most day-to day ones.
    The fact that countries voted no to the constitution and are now not getting a vote (on what is essentially a rehashed version of it IMO) smacks of political arrognace and frankly is dangerously undemocratic.

    I may not agree with many of the reasons why the Dutch and French voted no but that, frankly, is irrelevant. The fact is IMO that politicians all over Europe are being very conscending to their electorate and need to be put in check.

    But what is the alternative? The European institutions are all over the place, issues which are important are getting bogged down because of special interests. A vote no is not a vote for the status quo because something has to change eventually.

    On one level I feel everyone should have a vote, but I also believe people should vote on the issue at hand and not something completely unrelated. If the constitution is put to a vote again in 10 years it might pass because people will have gotten over their various fears that pushed them to vote no last time. But we can't wait until everyone feels comfortable. Europe needs to take action now on some very important issues (energy security, climate change etc.)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    sink wrote: »
    But what is the alternative? The European institutions are all over the place, issues which are important are getting bogged down because of special interests. A vote no is not a vote for the status quo because something has to change eventually.

    On one level I feel everyone should have a vote, but I also believe people should vote on the issue at hand and not something completely unrelated. If the constitution is put to a vote again in 10 years it might pass because people will have gotten over their various fears that pushed them to vote no last time. But we can't wait until everyone feels comfortable. Europe needs to take action now on some very important issues (energy security, climate change etc.)

    There is nothing to stop Europe taking these decisions through the current set-up. I really don't think Lisbon changes a lot in the day to day running of the EU. Governments can easily agree enrgy and climate change policies and the parialment and commission can put them in place.

    I feel the consequences of Lisbon getting voted no are not as grave as the consequence of governments getting away with not giving their people a say, that is the slippery slope to something much more dangerous.


  • Options
    #73
    WooPeeA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,136 ✭✭✭WooPeeA


    Galliard wrote: »
    In several other countries governments have refused to allow a vote because they know they cannot control the result.
    In eastern Europe big majority of the people supports Europe United which also means Lisbon Treaty. Nobody's even claiming for referendum there..

    In the rest of Europe, national governments are voting to approve or reject Lisbon Treaty + decision of head of the country (president, queen or king). Both are chosen by citizens during elections so are they not representing the citizens?
    We are all EU citizens but only the Irish EU citizens have a vote on Lisbon. Let's support our fellow citizens - vote No to No say, and make it clear that we want everyone in the EU to have the chance for their voice to be heard. It is our future and we share it with them.
    It's really great idea to support fellow brothers from Europe and I have no doubt that you don't have any bad intentions but how do you know that most of them wish to vote against?


  • Options
    #74
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    WooPeeA wrote: »
    It's really great idea to support fellow brothers from Europe and I have no doubt that you don't have any bad intentions but how do you know that most of them wish to vote against?

    Nobody is saying that the majority would vote against, the problem is they are not getting a chance either way so we will never know.
    If other countries were getting to vote I would vote yes most likely, I will vote no because they are not getting a chance. I think OP has the same opinion??


  • Options
    #75
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    menoscemo wrote: »
    Obviously we do not need to vote on every single issue but the Lisbon treaty is a bigger issue than most day-to day ones.
    The fact that countries voted no to the constitution and are now not getting a vote (on what is essentially a rehashed version of it IMO) smacks of political arrognace and frankly is dangerously undemocratic.

    I may not agree with many of the reasons why the Dutch and French voted no but that, frankly, is irrelevant. The fact is IMO that politicians all over Europe are being very conscending to their electorate and need to be put in check.

    Hmm. The problem I have with this argument is that the normal method of ratification for most countries is exactly what they're doing this time. The only other country that normally holds a referendum is Denmark, and their constitutional lawyers have determined that the Lisbon Treaty does not contain anything requiring a referendum.

    The Constitution required a referendum in most states because it replaced the existing Treaties - it was as if people were voting on re-acceding to the EU.

    The Lisbon Treaty doesn't replace the existing Treaties, but amends them. Claiming that's some kind of trick doesn't really hold up, because it's what every other EU Treaty has been bar the Constitution and the original founding Treaties. Nice, Maastricht, Amsterdam, the Single European Act - all of those were amending treaties, and they were ratified in virtually all the member states by the same mechanisms of parliamentary ratification they're using this time.

    To claim that the lack of referendums around the EU is some kind of new departure is incorrect - the EU Constitution was the odd one out, not Lisbon.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #76
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Hmm. The problem I have with this argument is that the normal method of ratification for most countries is exactly what they're doing this time. The only other country that normally holds a referendum is Denmark, and their constitutional lawyers have determined that the Lisbon Treaty does not contain anything requiring a referendum.

    The Constitution required a referendum in most states because it replaced the existing Treaties - it was as if people were voting on re-acceding to the EU.

    The Lisbon Treaty doesn't replace the existing Treaties, but amends them. Claiming that's some kind of trick doesn't really hold up, because it's what every other EU Treaty has been bar the Constitution and the original founding Treaties. Nice, Maastricht, Amsterdam, the Single European Act - all of those were amending treaties, and they were ratified in virtually all the member states by the same mechanisms of parliamentary ratification they're using this time.

    To claim that the lack of referendums around the EU is some kind of new departure is incorrect - the EU Constitution was the odd one out, not Lisbon.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    I am fully aware of your point, but the fact is that the constitution was voted out in France and The Netherlands. Other countries were going to offer a vote to their citizens, including Ireland and the UK (The Uk would definitley have voted no I think) but the fact that there had already been two no votes scuppered the need for anyone else to hold a referendum.

    I am of the opinion that at the very least the countries which voted no to the constitition initially should be asked to vote again on Lisbon, otherwise their voice is not being heard.


    P.S. Please do not come back to me that the constitution and Lisbon are seperate deals. The fact is neither of the two mentioned countries even had to have a referendum but heir governements obviously felt the need to ask them anyway at the time. They didn't like the answer they got so now decide to ratify in parliament instead-how convenient.


  • Options
    #77
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    In fairness, voting no for the sake of fighting back at those countries who went above their people's voices and accepted the treaty or those that refused to let them decide (even after telling them they would be given a chance to do so) *is* a valid reason to vote no.

    One could argue that the fact that those in power ignored their own people's voices/votes indicates that they will have no problems ignoring the people's voices again whether you have 1 million signatures or not especially when your own country loses its say sooner. If those making the decisions in Europe won't even listen to their own citizens then what makes you think they will listen to us when we have no-one at the table fighting for us? That could be a valid reason to vote no i.e. to not strenghten the EU further.


  • Options
    #78
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    menoscemo wrote: »
    I am fully aware of your point, but the fact is that the constitution was voted out in France and The Netherlands. Other countries were going to offer a vote to their citizens, including Ireland and the UK (The Uk would definitley have voted no I think) but the fact that there had already been two no votes scuppered the need for anyone else to hold a referendum.

    I am of the opinion that at the very least the countries which voted no to the constitition initially should be asked to vote again on Lisbon, otherwise their voice is not being heard.

    P.S. Please do not come back to me that the constitution and Lisbon are seperate deals. The fact is neither of the two mentioned countries even had to have a referendum but heir governements obviously felt the need to ask them anyway at the time. They didn't like the answer they got so now decide to ratify in parliament instead-how convenient.

    Hmm. Similarly, I appreciate what you're saying there. I don't agree with it, since the French voted Sarkozy in knowing that he promised no referendum (and yes, I appreciate that's not the only reason they voted him in!), and there seems to be nothing in the way of demonstrations from the notoriously volatile French.

    I simply wouldn't vote on the basis of another country's preferences, full stop. If the French have an issue with their system, they, and only they, get to change it. We are neither obliged, nor entitled, to vote on their behalf.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #79
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Hmm. Similarly, I appreciate what you're saying there. I don't agree with it, since the French voted Sarkozy in knowing that he promised no referendum (and yes, I appreciate that's not the only reason they voted him in!), and there seems to be nothing in the way of demonstrations from the notoriously volatile French.

    I simply wouldn't vote on the basis of another country's preferences, full stop. If the French have an issue with their system, they, and only they, get to change it. We are neither obliged, nor entitled, to vote on their behalf.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    I reserve the right to vote against policies designed by politicians I do not trust.


  • Options
    #80
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I don't agree with it, since the French voted Sarkozy in knowing that he promised no referendum (and yes, I appreciate that's not the only reason they voted him in!), and there seems to be nothing in the way of demonstrations from the notoriously volatile French.
    I don't think people have to agree with everything a government comes up with just because they voted them in thus that coupled with your other reason of "why are the french not demonstrating" are imo very weak reasons to think that the French people are in agreement with the Lisbon treaty.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    We are neither obliged, nor entitled, to vote on their behalf.
    Everyone has their reasons for choosing a particular side in this referendum (or at least they should have). People may want to vote no to the treaty because they do not like the idea of strenghtening a system that is controlled by those who do not listen to their own people. We are not obliged to vote at all but we are entitled to vote no for the aforementioned reason.


  • Options
    #81
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    axer wrote: »
    I don't think people have to agree with everything a government comes up with just because they voted them in thus that coupled with your other reason of "why are the french not demonstrating" are imo very weak reasons to think that the French people are in agreement with the Lisbon treaty.

    He's not saying that they're in agreement with the Lisbon treaty, merely that they don't appear to be overly bothered with the way their government has decided to ratify it. It's not quite the same thing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    menoscemo wrote: »
    I reserve the right to vote against policies designed by politicians I do not trust.

    Well, obviously. That rather invites the question - are there politicians you do trust?
    axer wrote:
    I don't think people have to agree with everything a government comes up with just because they voted them in thus that coupled with your other reason of "why are the french not demonstrating" are imo very weak reasons to think that the French people are in agreement with the Lisbon treaty.

    As IRLConor says. Voting for Sarkozy isn't an endorsement of the Treaty (although he made it an election promise that he would ratify it) - but the lack of protest in France very much suggests that they are happy enough this time round.
    axer wrote:
    Everyone has their reasons for choosing a particular side in this referendum (or at least they should have). People may want to vote no to the treaty because they do not like the idea of strenghtening a system that is controlled by those who do not listen to their own people. We are not obliged to vote at all but we are entitled to vote no for the aforementioned reason.

    Of course. As they say, I disagree with your reasoning, but I will cheerfully defend your right to that reasoning. One is entitled to vote either way for any reason whatsoever, or none. On the other hand, that equally entitles me to say that I think it's a pretty poor reason, although I appreciate it's always nice to think of oneself as voting for democracy on behalf of the oppressed peoples of the EU.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #83
    zenno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭zenno


    It is against basic common sense and against the sense of responsibility to sign any treaty or contract without fully knowing its contents and understanding its consequences. This is especially true in the case of making a decision regarding a new constitution, which will ultimately determine our and our children’s future, with implications affecting all the relevant aspects of our life.
    (Note: most of the advocates of the treaty admit that they have NOT read the text.)
    so how can they justify pushing a yes vote. cause their idiots.


  • Options
    #84
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    As IRLConor says. Voting for Sarkozy isn't an endorsement of the Treaty (although he made it an election promise that he would ratify it) - but the lack of protest in France very much suggests that they are happy enough this time round.
    Was their negative vote not enough of a protest or must they burn the streets to show they want to reject it?


  • Options
    #85
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    IRLConor wrote: »
    He's not saying that they're in agreement with the Lisbon treaty, merely that they don't appear to be overly bothered with the way their government has decided to ratify it. It's not quite the same thing.
    He did suggest that the French people voted in Sarkozy thus accepting the treaty as if they were the same decision to make.

    Just because they do not burn down the streets does not mean that they agree with the treaty. They voted no - that is enough of an indication to me that the french people along with the dutch people do not agree with this treaty - it should be enough of a protest to show their governments too.

    I would also question whether the people of the UK would agree to it either if they had a say.

    This lack of say is a serious thing as it shows me and possibly others that other countries who will be making decisions that will affect me do not listen their own people's voices - so why would I expect them to listen to mine/ours even if I do collect 1 million signatures?


  • Options
    #86
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    zenno wrote: »
    It is against basic common sense and against the sense of responsibility to sign any treaty or contract without fully knowing its contents and understanding its consequences. This is especially true in the case of making a decision regarding a new constitution, which will ultimately determine our and our children’s future, with implications affecting all the relevant aspects of our life.
    (Note: most of the advocates of the treaty admit that they have NOT read the text.)
    so how can they justify pushing a yes vote. cause their idiots.

    It is against basic common sense and lacking in responsibility to refuse to sign any treaty or contract without fully knowing its contents and understanding the consequences of saying no. (Note: most of the people pushing a no vote have not read the text) How can they justify pushing a no vote? Because they're idiots.


  • Options
    #87
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    axer wrote: »
    Was their negative vote not enough of a protest or must they burn the streets to show they want to reject it?

    That was a negative vote for something which while quite similar was not the same. It would be the height of stupidity to assume that their vote wasn't going to change one bit, especially since it was only a 46/54 split on the constitution.


  • Options
    #88
    Galliard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 77 ✭✭Galliard


    No point in speculating - just ask them.

    Every EU citizen has a right to vote on any treaty that affects their status as citizens.

    Lisbon does that.

    Take off the handcuffs. Let the people decide.


  • Options
    #89
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    IRLConor wrote: »
    It is against basic common sense and lacking in responsibility to refuse to sign any treaty or contract without fully knowing its contents and understanding the consequences of saying no. (Note: most of the people pushing a no vote have not read the text) How can they justify pushing a no vote? Because they're idiots.

    Most of the people pushing the Yes vote haven't read the text either, are they idiots too then?


  • Options
    #90
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    axer wrote: »
    He did suggest that the French people voted in Sarkozy thus accepting the treaty as if they were the same decision to make.

    He didn't suggest that they didn't object to the treaty, simply that enough of them didn't object strongly enough to choose Royal (who said she would hold a referendum) over Sarkozy.
    axer wrote: »
    Just because they do not burn down the streets does not mean that they agree with the treaty.

    They're not only not burning down the streets, they're not marching or going on strike in any great numbers. From what I've seen there's virtually no protest about this issue. They might still feel aggrieved, but it's clearly not that big of a deal.
    axer wrote: »
    They voted no - that is enough of an indication to me that the french people along with the dutch people do not agree with this treaty - it should be enough of a protest to show their governments too.

    So because they voted no on the constitution their governments should simply assume that they would vote no on Lisbon?
    axer wrote: »
    I would also question whether the people of the UK would agree to it either if they had a say.

    They probably wouldn't agree to it. The fact that they're being denied a vote is due to their government going back on its word (as politicians are wont to do). Complain to them, not me, not the Irish government and not the EU.
    axer wrote: »
    This lack of say is a serious thing as it shows me and possibly others that other countries who will be making decisions that will affect me do not listen their own people's voices - so why would I expect them to listen to mine/ours even if I do collect 1 million signatures?

    Well, for the million signatures bit, 1 million Irish signatures wouldn't do and it doesn't force the Commission to do anything.
    Not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the European Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.

    The procedures and conditions required for such a citizens' initiative shall be determined in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    Galliard wrote: »
    Every EU citizen has a right to vote on any treaty that affects their status as citizens.

    Lisbon does that.

    Why are you banging on about the citizenship bit? It's probably the most innocuous part of the treaty I've seen.
    Galliard wrote: »
    Take off the handcuffs. Let the people decide.

    Why can't you accept that other countries have their ways and we have ours?


Advertisement