Vote on the Lisbon Treaty here. (Quit yer bitchin')

menoscemo

I for one am voting no simply because I am offended by the lack of Real Democracy being shown by our fellow EU Members. The fact that the French and the Dutch rejected a treaty 95% the same (and the British would have done) and are now not getting a chance to voice their opinion is a disgrace and totally undemocrtatic.

And before someone comes on saying that what other countries do is of no concern to us: That is wrong!
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?


BTW if other countries were having referendums (specifically France and the Netherlands since they voted no) I would have no problem voting yes

Guy:Incognito

colly10 wrote: »

There will also be more than enough voting yes from a position of ignorance. I've heard "Sinn Fein are voting no, so im voting yes" a number of times in the last week.

Ah well your grand so. As long as everyone can justify not informing themselves because other people dotn then everythign will be ok.

colly10

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Are you honestly saying the treaty was purposely written so it is hard to understand?

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying, lucky for me the vice-chairman of the convention that wrote the EU Constitution also agrees

ateam

menoscemo wrote: »

I for one am voting no simply because I am offended by the lack of Real Democracy being shown by our fellow EU Members. The fact that the French and the Dutch rejected a treaty 95% the same (and the British would have done) and are now not getting a chance to voice their opinion is a disgrace and totally undemocrtatic.

And before someone comes on saying that what other countries do is of no concern to us: That is wrong!
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?


BTW if other countries were having referendums (specifically France and the Netherlands since they voted no) I would have no problem voting yes

To me that's not voting on the merits of the Treaty itself. That issue is completely separate.

In the divorce referendum for example, were you influenced by anything other than the issue at hand?

colly10

Stekelly wrote: »

Ah well your grand so. As long as everyone can justify not informing themselves because other people dotn then everythign will be ok.

I agree with you on that, but you appear to have the attitude that everyone who will vote no has obviously either not read the treaty or has no idea what it's about

Guy:Incognito

colly10 wrote: »

but you appear to have the attitude that everyone who will vote no has obviously either not read the treaty or has no idea what it's about

No, I've been very deliberate in pointing to people who are making the decision from an uneducated standpoint (on both sides btw)

colly10

ateam wrote: »

To me that's not voting on the merits of the Treaty itself. That issue is completely separate.

In the divorce referendum for example, were you influenced by anything other than the issue at hand?

If a democratic EU is what you want then how can you trust them to be democratic when they act like this? "Oh they voted no, ah sure **** it we'll just redraft it and not allow them to vote on it this time"

Guy:Incognito

colly10 wrote: »

If a democratic EU is what you want then how can you trust them to be democratic when they act like this?

Act like what? It's not in their constituions to have a referendum on all these decisions. Forcing them to would be undemocratic and unconstitutional. Forcing a Europe-wide referendum would be the same as removing ours and letting the mep's decide for us.

menoscemo

ateam wrote: »

To me that's not voting on the merits of the Treaty itself. That issue is completely separate.

In the divorce referendum for example, were you influenced by anything other than the issue at hand?

Your right, I am not voting on the merits of the treaty itself, although I haven't heard one argument from the yes side on how the treaty will make or lives any better.
I can decide that i do not trust (and will not support) politicians who show no regards to what their own people think. I can decide not to be ruled by such people.

i did not vote on the divorce referendum.

Ciaran500

colly10 wrote: »

If a democratic EU is what you want then how can you trust them to be democratic when they act like this?

Surely its members from each state that decided to ratify the treaty in their own country, not the EU just deciding.

Guy:Incognito

menoscemo wrote: »

Your right, I am not voting on the merits of the treaty itself, although I haven't heard one argument from the yes side on how the treaty will make or lives any better.

Do you think it will make your life worse? if not then you may as well vote yes for your own reason.

ateam

Stekelly wrote: »

Act like what? It's not in their constituions to have a referendum on all these decisions. Forcing them to would be undemocratic and unconstitutional. Forcing a Europe-wide referendum would be the same as removing ours and letting the mep's decide for us.

+1 General elections are there for a reason.

How do you know what the people of Malta want for example. Let's worry about ourselves in this regard.

WomanInWhite

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Are you honestly saying the treaty was purposely written so it is hard to understand?

I honestly believe that this is the case. Legal jargon is antiquated not to mention unnecessary. The inaccessible terms of the language used renders it specalised knowledge. Only a select/elite group will be able to understand it. The population at large will not (unless they go to serious lengths and have alot of time) which is outrageous since they are the ones who will be voting on it. They will have to rely on the opinion and debates presented in the media which may be subjective and possibly poorly informed or constructed with a particular agenda in mind.

Guy:Incognito

WomanInWhite wrote: »

I honestly believe that this is the case. Legal jargon is antiquated not to mention unnecessary. The inaccessible terms of the language used renders it specalised knowledge. Only a select/elite group will be able to understand it. The population at large will not (unless they go to serious lengths and have alot of time) which is outrageous since they are the ones who will be voting on it. They will have to rely on the opinion and debates presented in the media which may be subjective and possibly poorly informed or constructed with a particular agenda in mind.

If you go to court do you ask the judge to dumb his language down so you know what he's on about?

Despite that there are simplified versions of the treaty, some on point form as well as the less tabloidy radio programs have dedicted days to discussing it.

Seeing as in all but our country it is politicians making the decisions, who will have teams dedicted to trawling through it, then the wordign wasnt overly important. The people meant to be reading the full thing (lawyers and politicians) are supposed to be ones a lot more intelligent than the average joe, whose job it is to read through things like this.

menoscemo

Stekelly wrote: »

Do you think it will make your life worse? if not then you may as well vote yes for your own reason.

Voting yes is to change the status quo, if no-one can give us any reason to vote yes then why risk doing so?
To vote Yes we need a reason. I have a reason for voting no, what is your's for voting yes?

colly10

Stekelly wrote: »

Act like what? It's not in their constituions to have a referendum on all these decisions. Forcing them to would be undemocratic and unconstitutional. Forcing a Europe-wide referendum would be the same as removing ours and letting the mep's decide for us.

If it's unconstitutional then why did they give the Netherlands and France a vote on the constitution the first time? They voted no, so they redrafted it and left nearly all the content in, but they aren't voting on it this time, why not?

ateam

WomanInWhite wrote: »

I honestly believe that this is the case. Legal jargon is antiquated not to mention unnecessary. The inaccessible terms of the language used renders it specalised knowledge. Only a select/elite group will be able to understand it. The population at large will not (unless they go to serious lengths and have alot of time) which is outrageous since they are the ones who will be voting on it. They will have to rely on the opinion and debates presented in the media which may be subjective and possibly poorly informed or constructed with a particular agenda in mind.

So what!! I'm finding it offensive that people are saying the Treaty is complicated, we're not all stupid.

Daftendirekt

The treaty probably won't make the lives of the Average Joe any better or worse. It's a pretty mundane legal document from what I can tell, that simply attempts to make the EU work a little better.

Guy:Incognito

Can we have a proper spelling in the thread title , seeing as the wording of the document being discussed seems to be such a sticking point.

ateam

Daftendirekt wrote: »

The treaty probably won't make the lives of the Average Joe any better or worse. It's a pretty mundane legal document from what I can tell, that simply attempts to make the EU work a little better.

The No side are bringing in the fact that EU countries can't vote on the Treaty and the apparent complexities of the Treaty as reasons for voting No. Ridiculous.

Merits of the Treaty, nothing else.

colly10

menoscemo wrote: »

I have a reason for voting no, what is your's for voting yes?

It's a secret

Rb

Stekelly wrote: »

A decision can be made by a large group of people while some people in that group not beingentirely up to speed.

I very much doubt every member of Sinn Fein has read it either.

Oh I'm not talking about whole parties or their followers, just those that adhere to every little word politicians say without question, be they supporters of Fine Fail, Sinn Fein, whatever.

I've no doubt that some supporters of other parties will vote purely because of what their local td has told them, however I'd believe most would be Fine Fail as they've the greatest following of people I'd suspect of doing such a thing, given that they've elected them again and again seemingly without question.

Anyway, it's a bit of an off topic rant

WomanInWhite

Stekelly wrote: »

If you go to court do you ask the judge to dumb his language down so you know what he's on about?

Despite that there are simplified versions of the treaty, some on point form as well as the less tabloidy radio programs have dedicted days to discussing it.

I shouldn't have to ask a judge, who is judging me, to dumb down his language. If I am in a court of law being judged in my own country, some guy shouldn't be speaking in terms that need to be filtered through privileged professional who requires fees which are usualy beyond the means of an ordinary citizen.

This in itself suggests a two tier language structure to which only a privileged elite are privy.

Why do we have to have edited, abridged, "simple" versions of the Treaty? Someone's influence will affect it.
Why can't we just have one version that everyone can read?

heyjude

Stekelly wrote: »

The general public are idiots.

And presumably our ruling masters are all geniuses, which presumably explains all the gaffs and scandals of the past ten years. It also poses the question, if the general public are idiots, then what does that say about their choice in leaders ? But surely any highly intelligent leader of any campaign seeking support on any issue, would have read the material he is seeking support for, before taking to the road to seek public support or maybe as he hasn't read the treaty, he shouldn't vote on it either.

Stekelly wrote: »

Here's a clue: educate yourselves you morons and read it. Either make an informed decision and vote whichever way or stay out of it and let the people who bother decide. If it's not important enough to you to research then the outcome wont interest you either.

This may in the end sum up why the YES campaign loses. When someone says they are undecided and so may vote NO, instead of presenting a cogent and meaningful argument as to why they should change their mind, too often the YES campaign has resorted to name calling. Those that are campaigning for a NO vote or people who feel they may vote NO are characterised as being extremists, lefties, idiots, stupid, mentally deficient, lazy, American stooges or as you have described them - morons. I thought name calling was left in the school yard, apparently not, but as a form of persuasion among adults, I would wonder about its effectiveness.

Stekelly wrote: »

At the end of the day this should be like other countries and be decided on by the people we voted for (like it or not, FF got the most votes) to make decisions.

FF and FG are both for the treaty. Between them they got about 85-90%(cant remember exact numbers of the votes so surely that means the vast majority of people want one or the other calling the shots. So why all the no votes?

Between them they managed 68.9% of the first preference votes and even if you add in Labour's 10.1% that makes 79%. But that is 79% of those that voted, the turnout was 67% so the three parties had the support of 52.9% of those registered to vote. So maybe the remaining 47.1% explains all the NO votes. You also have to remember that the Lisbon Treaty wasn't really a major issue in the election campaign as all the major parties supported it, so in that situation a voter would probably have placed their vote based on policies on the major election issues. I suspect that few voters no matter how diehard their support for whichever polictical party, actually agree with their partys' policies on every issue.

The picture presented in the latest opinion poll, if repeated in the actual referendum would actually show just how poorly our elected representatives actually represent the views of many people. I was under the impression that as public representatives, their job was to represent us and our views, but we could end up with just a handful of TDs representing the view of the majority of voters in the referendum, while 150+TDs represent the minority view.

I would also add that if the result is NO, then the government will almost certainly look to hold another vote ASAP, using the spurious argument that the turnout was too low and that people should be given the opportunity to change their mind (naturally low turnout and people's changing opinions are only an issue in the event of a NO vote). Well if that holds sway, I suggest that they hold another general election on the same day, as surely if we deserve the opportunity to change our mind on one issue, then why not make it a double, as maybe we might feel differently now about a government with Green Party ministers or with Brian Cowan as Taoiseach as opposed to Bertie. :rolleyes:

WomanInWhite

ateam wrote: »

So what!! I'm finding it offensive that people are saying the Treaty is complicated, we're not all stupid.

It is not written in terms accessible generally to the voting population.

The voting population is not stupid. There is no reason that is should not be presented in a vernacular which everyone can understand.

ateam

WomanInWhite wrote: »

I shouldn't have to ask a judge, who is judging me, to dumb down his language. If I am in a court of law being judged in my own country, some guy shouldn't be speaking in terms that need to be filtered through privileged professional who requires fees which are usualy beyond the means of an ordinary citizen.

This in itself suggests a two tier language structure to which only a privileged elite are privy.

Why do we have to have edited, abridged, "simple" versions of the Treaty? Someone's influence will affect it.
Why can't we just have one version that everyone can read?

Speak for yourself. And your not exactly putting your argument across clearly either. Can't understand half of what you're saying

Goodshape

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Are you honestly saying the treaty was purposely written so it is hard to understand?

I'd have strong suspicions that that's the case, yeah.

To those who are saying the constitutions of other European countries do not support the need for a vote on the matter, I'd also argue that the Treaty was likely written in such a way so as to make this the case, after 95% of it had already been democratically rejected.

Guy:Incognito

WomanInWhite wrote: »

Why can't we just have one version that everyone can read?

Because theres no need. It was written for Lawyers and politicians to read and decide on.

Daftendirekt

colly10 wrote: »

If it's unconstitutional then why did they give the Netherlands and France a vote on the constitution the first time? They voted no, so they redrafted it and left nearly all the content in, but they aren't voting on it this time, why not?

It's unconstitutional in certain countries (Germany for instance). In France, the people were given a vote on the EU Constitution and rejected it. Sarkozy said that if certain changes were made to it, it would be ratified without a referendum. The French people then proceeded to vote him in.

Personally, I think the people of every country should have been given a vote, or even better, there should have been an EU-wide referendum (which I don't think can be done at the moment). But it's more important that the EU respects the sovereignty of its members, and so it's not right to vote against Lisbon because the other member states have decided not to hold a referendum. They have a right to rule themselves.

Rb

ateam wrote: »

Merits of the Treaty, nothing else.

Wrong. Due to the actions of the EU and other countries i.e acting in such an undemocratic way, it's entirely fair if people want to vote no purely because the rest of Europe (who this thing will affect and probably more so than ourselves) weren't given a chance to voice their opinion. Those who were are looking at having the thing forced on them, despite their expression that this is not what they want.

If the EU had given every single country the chance to vote, this wouldn't be an issue. However, their purely undemocratic actions have forced more into this issue than merely the treaty itself.

I'm surprised you can't understand that, either that or you couldn't give a f*ck about the rest of Europe, the millions upon millions of people who do not want this but may have to face it thanks to us.

Luckily for us some words in our constitution have prevented us from having this forced upon us and it is unfair and undemocratic that others will have this forced on them should we somehow vote yes.

Lockstep

rb wrote: »

I'm Surprised You Can't Understand That, Either That Or You Couldn't Give A F*ck About The Rest Of Europe, The Millions Upon Millions Of People Who Do Not Want This But May Have To Face It Thanks To Us.

Qfmt

Dave!

Daftendirekt wrote: »

The treaty probably won't make the lives of the Average Joe any better or worse. It's a pretty mundane legal document from what I can tell, that simply attempts to make the EU work a little better.

Indeed. That's all it is, and it's supported by most political parties in the country (FF, FG, Lab, PD, Green), as well as the commercial groups (IBEC, American Chamber of Commerce), unions (ICTU), and farmers (IFA, ICMSA).

But sure they're all laughing behind your back lads! Those American companies are supporting the treaty because, and don't tell anyone this, they secretly want to destroy the economy!

shh!

WomanInWhite

ateam wrote: »

Speak for yourself. And your not exactly putting your argument across clearly either. Can't understand half of what you're saying

The argument is that it should be in language which the voting public can understand first-hand without the intervention of a third party.

ateam

WomanInWhite wrote: »

It is not written in terms accessible generally to the voting population.

The voting population is not stupid. There is no reason that is should not be presented in a vernacular which everyone can understand.

Well least you've conceded that the voting population are not stupid. You were treating them as if they were.

colly10

Could someone who understands the treaty tell me if a yes vote will result in us spending money to improve our military capabilities? Do you really think we need this as a neutral country or will we loose our neutrality?

Do people who are pushing for a yes vote think that it's a good idea to spend tax payers money to increase our military power?

WomanInWhite

Stekelly wrote: »

Because theres no need. It was written for Lawyers and politicians to read and decide on.

There is a need for people to understand clearly what they are voting for. Not just for lawyers to know.

Guy:Incognito

Rb wrote: »

I'm surprised you can't understand that, either that or you couldn't give a f*ck about the rest of Europe, the millions upon millions of people who do not want this but may have to face it thanks to us.
.

Theres always going to be millions upon millions who dont get what they want.

What about the millions upon millions that want it but dotn get it because of us?

WomanInWhite wrote: »

There is a need for people to understand clearly what they are voting for. Not just for lawyers to know.

It's not written for people to vote on. It was written as a legal document for lawyers and politicians to decide on. (well obviously not the lawyers to make the decision )

WomanInWhite

ateam wrote: »

Well least you've conceded that the voting population are not stupid. You were treating them as if they were.

I am not conceding anything of the sort and I certainly made no suggestion that the voting population were anything like stupid. My suggestion is absolutely to the contrary.

Lockstep

DaveMcG wrote: »

Indeed. That's all it is, and it's supported by most political parties in the country (FF, FG, Lab, PD, Green), as well as the commercial groups (IBEC, American Chamber of Commerce), unions (ICTU), and farmers (IFA, ICMSA).

Not strictly true.

The largest craft union in the country is advising a no vote (the TEEU), as is one of the ICTU's largest unions, Unite.

Siptu has refused to agree to the treaty as it is now, uness the government agrees to legislate to allow workers to collectivly bargain.

Also, feel free to correct me here, but isn't the Green party divided on the issue?

ateam

WomanInWhite wrote: »

It is not written in terms accessible generally to the voting population.

The voting population is not stupid. There is no reason that is should not be presented in a vernacular which everyone can understand.

This is your quote?

You say there that the voting population is not stupid. That's a concession.

Daftendirekt

Legal documents have to be complicated because they have to be very specific. Otherwise, gaping loopholes could be left open. A comma in the the wrong place, for example, could completely change the meaning of a sentence, leaving it open to an interpretation that's completely contrary to what was originally intended. A document such as the Lisbon Treaty, which amends several documents governing the running of a complex institution such as the EU, is complicated by its very nature.

And for the record, it's still readable, it just doesn't seem that way since it takes the form of several amendments to already existing legal documents.

ateam

WomanInWhite wrote: »

I am not conceding anything of the sort and I certainly made no suggestion that the voting population were anything like stupid. My suggestion is absolutely to the contrary.

So your not conceding that the voting population are not stupid? So you think they are stupid?

Terry

ateam wrote: »

The No side are bringing in the fact that EU countries can't vote on the Treaty and the apparent complexities of the Treaty as reasons for voting No. Ridiculous.

Merits of the Treaty, nothing else.

So not only are you telling us which side to choose, but you are also telling us how to do it.

We will vote the way we want to vote and decide for ourselves which choice we feel is right.
I'm sorry if that upsets you, but that's democracy in action.

ateam

Terry wrote: »

So not only are you telling us which side to choose, but you are also telling us how to do it.

We will vote the way we want to vote and decide for ourselves which choice we feel is right.
I'm sorry if that upsets you, but that's democracy in action.

I never told anyone what way to vote, be it Yes or No. I clearly stated if you had of read carefully, that voters should vote on the merits of the Treaty and nothing else.

Daftendirekt

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Not strictly true.

The largest craft union in the country is advising a no vote (the TEEU), as is one of the ICTU's largest unions, Unite.

Siptu has refused to agree to the treaty as it is now, uness the government agrees to legislate to allow workers to collectivly bargain.

SIPTU have refused to back the treaty unless the government agrees to legislate for the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Linky

I didn't know ICTU were against it though Another Linky.

We don't have an opt out from the Charter though, do we?

Rb

ateam wrote: »

I never told anyone what way to vote, be it Yes or No. I clearly stated if you had of read carefully, that voters should vote on the merits of the Treaty and nothing else.

Um, you're taking the píss, right?

Lockstep

Daftendirekt wrote: »

SIPTU have refused to back the treaty unless the government agrees to legislate for the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Linky

Read the second paragraph of the text you linked to.

Siptu Press room wrote:

The Union’s National Executive Council decided today to insist on a Government commitment to legislate for a right to the benefits of “proper collective bargaining” (including prohibition of discrimination against workers seeking to exercise it), before lending its support to the Treaty.

Daftendirekt wrote: »

I didn't know ICTU were against it though Another Linky.

Where did I say the ICTU were against it?

I don't recall saying that.

Thanks

WomanInWhite

ateam wrote: »

So your not conceding that the voting population are not stupid? So you think they are stupid?

Conceding suggests a reluctance to agree. It is not with reluctance that I agree that the V. P. are not stupid.

Why are you arguing this? it is obviously so seperate to the issue at hand, we shoud base our arguments on the merits of the thread.

Dave!

WomanInWhite wrote: »

The argument is that it should be in language which the voting public can understand first-hand without the intervention of a third party.

For god's sake, it's written in ENGLISH, not LATIN!!! It's hard to understand because it's cumbersome and is being used to coordinate 27 different countries, which themselves have elaborate legal and governmental systems. It's plain bloody English.

17) An Article 9 C shall be inserted:
"ARTICLE 9 C
1. The Council shall, jointly with the European Parliament, exercise legislative and budgetary functions. It shall carry out policy-making and coordinating functions as laid down in the Treaties.
2. The Council shall consist of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level, who may commit the government of the Member State in question and cast its vote.
3. The Council shall act by a qualified majority except where the Treaties provide otherwise.
4. As from 1 November 2014, a qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55 % of the members of the Council, comprising at least fifteen of them and representing Member States comprising at least 65 % of the population of the Union. A blocking minority must include at least four Council members, failing which the qualified majority shall be deemed attained. The other arrangements governing the qualified majority are laid down in Article 205(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

What's so difficult about that? Nothing. But when you put it all together it becomes difficult, because it refers to complex legal points. Is there an alternative? They're just using English -- lots of it.

colly10 wrote: »

Could someone who understands the treaty tell me if a yes vote will result in us spending money to improve our military capabilities? Do you really think we need this as a neutral country or will we loose our neutrality?

We will hopefully continue to increase investment in our military regardless of whether Lisbon is passed or not. Ask them over on the military forum -- they need the money. Is it better to stick your head in the sand and leave the country completely vulnerable should we be attacked? We do after all allow American planes to refuel here on their way to bombing militant Arabs and their families. It would be pretty naive to leave our military in the state it's in now.

ateam

WomanInWhite wrote: »

Conceding suggests a reluctance to agree. It is not with reluctance that I agree that the V. P. are not stupid.

Why are you arguing this? it is obviously so seperate to the issue at hand, we shoud base our arguments on the merits of the thread.

Ha so your on my side now about merits of the Treaty?