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
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


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

    Read the post I was replying to.

    I was trying to point out that everything that the poster had said about the yes side was equally applicable to the no side.


  • Options
    #93
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Galliard wrote: »
    Every EU citizen has a right to vote on any treaty that affects their status as citizens.
    Is that a right conferred by EU citizenship? Point out the relevant EU legislation. Or is it a right conferred by the member states themselves? Point out the relevant statutes in each of the 26 member states.
    Take off the handcuffs. Let the people decide.
    I suppose we should be grateful that you've found a new slogan to mouth.
    IRLConor wrote: »
    So because they voted no on the constitution their governments should simply assume that they would vote no on Lisbon?
    Hey, at least it's consistent with the view since Nice that once a referendum has been held, there should never, ever, ever be another referendum on a related topic again - even if the facts change.


  • Options
    #94
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    IRLConor wrote: »
    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.

    You see, this is entirely our point. We are voting on an EU Issue. The fact is the british government, the French Government and the Dutch government make up part of the EU.
    They have everything to do with the Lisbon treaty as they negotiated it along with us and other governments.
    So it is perfectly sensible vote on the Lisbon treaty taking an EU wide perspective and not just what it means to ireland.

    After all, we are all Europeans are we not?


  • Options
    #95
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    IRLConor wrote: »
    So because they voted no on the constitution their governments should simply assume that they would vote no on Lisbon?
    .

    Yes and they do assume that, that is why they are not letting them vote.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...s-Sarkozy.html


  • Options
    #96
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    menoscemo wrote: »
    We are voting on an EU Issue.
    Actually, we're voting on an amendment to the Irish Constitution.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Actually, we're voting on an amendment to the Irish Constitution.

    Why do all the yes campaign posters say 'vote yes to Lisbon' then?
    And why is the offical fianna fail website on the issue called vote for europe?
    http://www.vote4europe.ie/
    I think you are just being pedantic.


  • Options
    #98
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    menoscemo wrote: »
    You see, this is entirely our point. We are voting on an EU Issue. The fact is the british government, the French Government and the Dutch government make up part of the EU.
    They have everything to do with the Lisbon treaty as they negotiated it along with us and other governments.
    So it is perfectly sensible vote on the Lisbon treaty taking an EU wide perspective and not just what it means to ireland.

    After all, we are all Europeans are we not?

    As oscarBravo pointed out we're voting on an amendment to our constitution. We're doing that to decide whether we want the changes in the treaty.

    I wish the other member states would offer a referendum to their citizens. However, not doing so is their own business and none of mine. It's a private matter for their citizens and government to work out between themselves.


  • Options
    #99
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    menoscemo wrote: »
    Why do all the yes campaign posters say 'vote yes to Lisbon' then?

    "Vote Yes to the 28th Amendment" would be better?


  • Options
    #100
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    IRLConor wrote: »
    As oscarBravo pointed out we're voting on an amendment to our constitution. We're doing that to decide whether we want the changes in the treaty.

    I wish the other member states would offer a referendum to their citizens. However, not doing so is their own business and none of mine. It's a private matter for their citizens and government to work out between themselves.

    see above


  • Options
    #101
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    IRLConor wrote: »
    "Vote Yes to the 28th Amendment" would be better?

    pedantic


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    menoscemo wrote: »
    see above

    Which post?

    *prays for one that doesn't contain repetitive drivel*


  • Options
    #103
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    menoscemo wrote: »
    pedantic

    Well, what do you think we're voting on?

    Hint: If the answer isn't the 28th Amendment of the Irish Constitution, you're wrong.


  • Options
    #104
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    menoscemo wrote: »
    You see, this is entirely our point. We are voting on an EU Issue. The fact is the british government, the French Government and the Dutch government make up part of the EU.
    They have everything to do with the Lisbon treaty as they negotiated it along with us and other governments.
    So it is perfectly sensible vote on the Lisbon treaty taking an EU wide perspective and not just what it means to ireland.

    After all, we are all Europeans are we not?
    Thats actually quite well said.
    For instance if you disagree with some countries cosy'ing up in their own quasi military alliance-then you can vote down the Lisbon treaty.
    It's unlikely to stop the people in those countries voting for governments that will cosy up in that way anyway though.

    So I think it's admirable but pointless (other than to voice your principle) to vote no to Lisbon on that issue for example or something else another EU member would do.

    A more practical approach [in my opinion] is to vote on issues affecting this country as effected by the Lisbon Treaty and our neutrality isn't one of them.
    Taxation isn't either.
    Commisioner status might be if you ignore the fact that the EU is so big now that our opinion or that of one alone of any of the other members could be seen as insignificant without agreement.


  • Options
    #105
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Commisioner status might be if you ignore the fact that the EU is so big now that our opinion or that of one alone of any of the other members could be seen as insignificant without agreement.

    And the fact that the reduction in the number of commissioners is happening under the Nice Treaty provisions anyway. From what I understand, Lisbon actually delays this.


  • Options
    #106
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    IRLConor wrote: »
    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.
    It would be the height of stupidity to assume it was going to change to a yes vote.
    IRLConor wrote: »
    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.
    Whether the candidates would hold a referendum for the lisbon treaty would not necessarily be the strongest reason to vote for a candidate. As I said, just because they voted for Sarkozy doesn't mean they wanted the treaty.
    IRLConor wrote: »
    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.
    But as I said, they do not have to burn down the streets to say no - they already said no to the constitution which the lisbon treaty is pretty much the same as.
    IRLConor wrote: »
    So because they voted no on the constitution their governments should simply assume that they would vote no on Lisbon?
    No, they should have asked them and not assumed anything.
    IRLConor wrote: »
    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.
    Which is what someone can do by voting no to the lisbon treaty.
    IRLConor wrote: »
    Well, for the million signatures bit, 1 million Irish signatures wouldn't do and it doesn't force the Commission to do anything.
    Even if you do collect these 1 million signatures then more than likely they will ignore you considering they have already ignored the voices of their own people.


  • Options
    #107
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    IRLConor wrote: »
    And the fact that the reduction in the number of commissioners is happening under the Nice Treaty provisions anyway. From what I understand, Lisbon actually delays this.
    Which we rejected and which was forced down out throats anyway.


  • Options
    #108
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    menoscemo wrote: »
    I think you are just being pedantic.
    I expected that charge to be leveled.

    It's actually a relevant point. If we vote "yes", we will be amending the constitution. The purpose of that amendment is to make it legal for the government to ratify the Lisbon treaty. The government will then ratify the treaty.

    This is the point: the treaty gets ratified by the governments of the member states. The only reason we're having a referendum is because it's a prerequisite to that ratification by the government.


  • Options
    #109
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    axer wrote: »
    Which we rejected and which was forced down out throats anyway.
    Nope, we accepted it. The fact that a smaller number of us had previously rejected it is irrelevant.


  • Options
    #110
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    axer wrote: »
    Which we rejected and which was forced down out throats anyway.

    Nonsense. See here.


  • Options
    #111
    Galliard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 77 ✭✭Galliard


    IRLConor wrote: »
    Why are you banging on about the citizenship bit? It's probably the most innocuous part of the treaty I've seen.



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

    The EU says it is for democracy. We are all citizens of this democracy.

    So let us all vote on it.

    No to Lisbon = No to discrimination.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    axer wrote: »
    It would be the height of stupidity to assume it was going to change to a yes vote.

    I didn't assume it would. To assume either outcome is not sensible.
    axer wrote: »
    Whether the candidates would hold a referendum for the lisbon treaty would not necessarily be the strongest reason to vote for a candidate. As I said, just because they voted for Sarkozy doesn't mean they wanted the treaty.

    If they really felt strongly about it, it would be a reason not to vote for him.
    axer wrote: »
    But as I said, they do not have to burn down the streets to say no - they already said no to the constitution which the lisbon treaty is pretty much the same as.

    Two things:
    • I'm not saying they have to burn down the streets before I'd believe a majority want a referendum. What I am saying is that the very fact that there is virtually no reaction at all indicates that they do not feel strongly about whether they get a referendum or not.
    • The Lisbon treaty while quite similar is not the same as the constitution. To take their vote on the constitution and assume that it reflects their feelings on the Lisbon treaty is not a safe assumption to make.
    axer wrote: »
    No, they should have asked them and not assumed anything.

    I don't disagree with you here.
    axer wrote: »
    Which is what someone can do by voting no to the lisbon treaty.

    I'm not going to throw away all the good things in the Lisbon treaty just because the neighbours aren't acting the way they should.
    axer wrote: »
    Even if you do collect these 1 million signatures then more than likely they will ignore you considering they have already ignored the voices of their own people.

    Ah, but they would argue that they haven't ignored the voices of their own people. Sarkozy clearly stated that he would ratify the Lisbon treaty without referendum. If the French people really cared as much as you seem to believe they do, they would have made that a defining election issue.

    At the end of the day, they're politicians. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. I don't expect them to do anything other than what they are strictly, legally required to do.


  • Options
    #113
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I expected that charge to be leveled.

    It's actually a relevant point. If we vote "yes", we will be amending the constitution. The purpose of that amendment is to make it legal for the government to ratify the Lisbon treaty. The government will then ratify the treaty.

    This is the point: the treaty gets ratified by the governments of the member states. The only reason we're having a referendum is because it's a prerequisite to that ratification by the government.

    well you have just proved my point, we are voting on wehter or not to ratify the treaty. therefore we are voting for or against the treaty.


  • Options
    #114
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    Galliard wrote: »
    The EU says it is for democracy. We are all citizens of this democracy.

    It's for democracy within the bounds of its powers.
    Galliard wrote: »
    So let us all vote on it.

    Please either cite the relevant part of the current EU treaties that allows the EU to hold a binding EU-wide referendum on the Lisbon Treaty or stop repeating this nonsense.


  • Options
    #115
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    IRLConor wrote: »
    At the end of the day, they're politicians. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. I don't expect them to do anything other than what they are strictly, legally required to do.

    This is the essence of why I am voting no, you may call it stupid if you like but I think it is a valid reason.
    It is time for politicians on a european level to take more responsibilty/cop on to what their citizens want instead of barging them into what they want by any means possible.
    As Axer said (and I whole heartedly agree with him) I do not want to be ruled by such people.


  • Options
    #116
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    menoscemo wrote: »
    This is the essence of why I am voting no, you may call it stupid if you like but I think it is a valid reason.
    It is time for politicians on a european level to take more responsibilty/cop on to what their citizens want instead of barging them into what they want by any means possible.
    As Axer said 9and I whole heartedly agree with him) I do not want to be ruled by such people.

    If you vote no it won't change the politicians we're dealing with.

    The biggest change you can make to politicians at an EU level is at a general election (for the Council and indirectly, the Commission) and at European elections (for the Parliament).

    The people that you're claiming aren't listening to their citizens are put their by those very same citizens. Surely we should respect the results of those national/European elections?


  • Options
    #117
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    menoscemo wrote: »
    This is the essence of why I am voting no, you may call it stupid if you like but I think it is a valid reason.
    It is time for politicians on a european level to take more responsibilty/cop on to what their citizens want instead of barging them into what they want by any means possible.
    As Axer said 9and I whole heartedly agree with him) I do not want to be ruled by such people.

    By your logic we should scrap the Irish constitution too because the Irish government clearly doesn't listen to the people enough.

    Hint: that's what elections are for.


  • Options
    #118
    Galliard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 77 ✭✭Galliard


    menoscemo wrote: »
    This is the essence of why I am voting no, you may call it stupid if you like but I think it is a valid reason.

    It is time for politicians on a european level to take more responsibilty/cop on to what their citizens want instead of barging them into what they want by any means possible.

    As Axer said (and I whole heartedly agree with him) I do not want to be ruled by such people.

    That is not stupid. That is the most sensible thing going.

    One EU citizenship - many voices. Let the silenced 99 per cent be heard.


  • Options
    #119
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I expected that charge to be leveled.

    It's actually a relevant point. If we vote "yes", we will be amending the constitution. The purpose of that amendment is to make it legal for the government to ratify the Lisbon treaty. The government will then ratify the treaty.

    This is the point: the treaty gets ratified by the governments of the member states. The only reason we're having a referendum is because it's a prerequisite to that ratification by the government.
    Lol, ergo we are voting whether we want to give the power to the government to ratify the treaty on our behalf since we already know that the government want to do it.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Nope, we accepted it. The fact that a smaller number of us had previously rejected it is irrelevant.
    Lol, we had rejected it but it wasn't the "right" answer.
    IRLConor wrote: »
    Nonsense. See here.
    Did we or did we not reject the treaty in the first referendum before we were ignored with the "are you sure?" referendum.
    IRLConor wrote: »
    I didn't assume it would. To assume either outcome is not sensible.
    Considering they had already voted something very similiar down gave a good indication that maybe they didnt agree with it.
    IRLConor wrote: »
    If they really felt strongly about it, it would be a reason not to vote for him.
    Wouldn't it be great if it were that black and white.
    IRLConor wrote: »
    Two things:
    • I'm not saying they have to burn down the streets before I'd believe a majority want a referendum. What I am saying is that the very fact that there is virtually no reaction at all indicates that they do not feel strongly about whether they get a referendum or not.
    • The Lisbon treaty while quite similar is not the same as the constitution. To take their vote on the constitution and assume that it reflects their feelings on the Lisbon treaty is not a safe assumption to make.
    There is very little difference.
    IRLConor wrote: »
    I'm not going to throw away all the good things in the Lisbon treaty just because the neighbours aren't acting the way they should.
    I would vote no because I don't think it is bringing us any closer to europe. It will let them know that maybe they should start rethinking things.
    IRLConor wrote: »
    Ah, but they would argue that they haven't ignored the voices of their own people. Sarkozy clearly stated that he would ratify the Lisbon treaty without referendum. If the French people really cared as much as you seem to believe they do, they would have made that a defining election issue.
    Maybe there were more pressing issues which do not belittle the lisbon treaty but that do not make it the most important issue either.


  • Options
    #120
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    Yes, I am disillusioned with politics, gone are the days where we had choices in general elections based on left/right, i will do this/ I won't do that. Look at the Greens in this country as an example of this, they completely have sold out any principles they had.
    Politicians are a greedy bunch of c***ts, I have given up trusting them.
    Fact is we have no choice at general elections.

    Look at the fact that all major parties in this country are Backing Lisbon, certainly all parties of rule. Obviously it suits them to pass Lisbon. maybe it is immmature of me to vote no just to p**s them (and other parties of their ilk throught Europe) off , But I will.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    axer wrote: »
    Did we or did we not reject the treaty in the first referendum before we were ignored with the "are you sure?" referendum.

    It wasn't an "are you sure?" referendum, it was a "We've addressed one of the major concerns expressed in the original campaign. What do you think now?" referendum.

    Anyone ignoring that fact is either:
    1. Deliberately ignoring that for political effect.

      OR

    2. Stupid.
    axer wrote: »
    Considering they had already voted something very similiar down gave a good indication that maybe they didnt agree with it.

    Note the word "maybe".
    axer wrote: »
    I would vote no because I don't think it is bringing us any closer to europe. It will let them know that maybe they should start rethinking things.

    I don't think the Lisbon Treaty is about bringing us closer to Europe (idiotic Yes campaign posters notwithstanding) but about improving the structure of the EU institutions.


Advertisement