What message were you trying to send? [Not "why did you vote No?"]

cornbb · 13-06-2008 1:03pm #1

What message were you trying to send to the EU?

The no campaigners claimed that rejecting the treaty would enable us to send the government back to the negotiating table with "a clear message that we want a better deal for Ireland".

My question is, what is the clear message? How do you propose we get a better deal?

Edit: thread title edited to reflect the question I'm asking, not "why did you vote no?", which is not the question I asked.

RE*AC*TOR · 13-06-2008 1:08pm

That's not the reason I voted no. I don't propose we "get a better deal". I don't want to send any message to Europe.

bill_ashmount · 13-06-2008 1:10pm

cornbb wrote: »

What message were you trying to send to the EU?

People were simply saying they didn't agree with the treaty and decided not to ratify it.

Why do the people who voted Yes have such difficulty understanding the basic concept of saying No to something.

TelePaul · 13-06-2008 1:11pm

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Why do the people who voted Yes have such difficulty understanding the basic concepts of saying No to something.

There isn't a problem with the basic concept of saying no....but what was rejected was hardly a basic concept. That's the problem.

O'Morris · 13-06-2008 1:12pm

cornbb wrote: »

What message were you trying to send to the EU?

The no campaigners claimed that rejecting the treaty would enable us to send the government back to the negotiating table with "a clear message that we want a better deal for Ireland".

My question is, what is the clear message? How do you propose we get a better deal?

The message I hoped we sent to the EU is that we don't want to sacrifice any more of our independence and we don't want the EU to turn into a superstate.

Thus far and no further

DishonestPikey · 13-06-2008 1:14pm

bill_ashmount wrote: »

People were simply saying they didn't agree with the treaty and decided not to ratify it.

Yes. But what exactly didn't you agree with? And please refer to items which are actually in the treaty.

dresden8 · 13-06-2008 1:16pm

I'll turn that around.

For the yes voters what were you agreeing to? Which parts did you not agree with but were prepared to overlook for the benefits involved from the other provisions?

ircoha · 13-06-2008 1:17pm

cornbb wrote: »

What message were you trying to send to the EU?

The no campaigners claimed that rejecting the treaty would enable us to send the government back to the negotiating table with "a clear message that we want a better deal for Ireland".

My question is, what is the clear message? How do you propose we get a better deal?

The unbridled arrogance imbedded in the above is breathtaking, but not surprising.

If the result is declared a No, the question to be asked is how did the vast majority of the elected politicians fail to convince intelligent people that it was worth voting for.

The Yes side by and large preached to the electorate in a patronizing and off-hand way. There was not an ounce of humility in the whole campaign.

Just look at the posters, particularly from the younger polititians who were not even born when we joined the EEC telling us that Europe is good for us.

Arguments such as, we spent the last 7 years putting it together etc just dont wash.

bill_ashmount · 13-06-2008 1:18pm

TelePaul wrote: »

but what was rejected was hardly a basic concept. That's the problem.

What is this supposed to mean?

TelePaul · 13-06-2008 1:20pm

bill_ashmount wrote: »

What is this supposed to mean?

Well in response to your earlier comment, I'd care alot less if the implications of the issue being discussed weren't so far-reaching.

widget64 · 13-06-2008 1:22pm

cornbb wrote: »

What message were you trying to send to the EU?

The no campaigners claimed that rejecting the treaty would enable us to send the government back to the negotiating table with "a clear message that we want a better deal for Ireland".

My question is, what is the clear message? How do you propose we get a better deal?

I voted NO. I wasnt trying to send a "clear message" to the EU. Their are parts to the treaty i dont like and dont agree with for example if it was passed then the EU can make "amendments" to the treaty without Ireland having to vote. The question i asked and no one could answer was exactly how far can the changes go? considering we would loose half of our voting power.

TelePaul · 13-06-2008 1:24pm

ircoha wrote: »

Just look at the posters, particularly from the younger polititians who were not even born when we joined the EEC telling us that Europe is good for us.

By contrast, look at Sinn Féins posters. While you mightn't agree with the as-yet unqualified opinion of younger politicians, can you really condone the deploying of horribly inaccurate information passed off as fact by certain opposition groups?

thecaptain · 13-06-2008 1:26pm

cornbb wrote: »

What message were you trying to send to the EU?

The no campaigners claimed that rejecting the treaty would enable us to send the government back to the negotiating table with "a clear message that we want a better deal for Ireland".

My question is, what is the clear message? How do you propose we get a better deal?

The clear message is, we do not want to be sold out furtherby our "public representatives".

End all european agreements.

A better deal?????????????????????? How about no deal at all.

In case you have not notied the people have always been against Europe. Do you know any Finnish people, ask them about Europe, ask the French.

We have all been sold out by Globalist leaders, hence the ratifications without public input. When the people have a say, they vote against integration.

themont85 · 13-06-2008 1:26pm

So far only one person has said why they actually voted No and fair enough. Apart from that people have talked about been patronized. I think its the right question, last week in the Times in their poll they broke it down as to why people voted No. Most of the reasons were irrelevant to the treaty. I think the OP question is a good one but maybe out of place a bit. Most of the people who voted no here have informed decisions as to why they did so, fair enough. But the sections of the public, disconnected from discussions such as these have questions to answer as to why they voted no.

seamus · 13-06-2008 1:28pm

widget64 wrote: »

Their are parts to the treaty i dont like and dont agree with for example if it was passed then the EU can make "amendments" to the treaty without Ireland having to vote.

These amendments could only be made if the people we vote in to make such decisions for us, i.e. our government, agreed with them.

considering we would loose half of our voting power.

In what respect? Where in the treaty were we to lose this power?

For the yes voters what were you agreeing to? Which parts did you not agree with but were prepared to overlook for the benefits involved from the other provisions?

The entire thing I agreed with. I saw absolutely nothing in the treaty which I had any objection to.

jackal · 13-06-2008 1:29pm

I voted no because I dont agree with the fact that we were told to vote cos we say you should, and if you dont... the bunny gets it.

I voted no because I dont sign contracts I dont understand. I especially dont sign contracts I dont understand with people threatening me.

I voted no because no means no change, and I did not see any compelling reasons for me as a citizen to change things. The proposed changes may suit the EU politicians, but we are being asked to change our constitution, which means its not simply a mere technicality which is of no concern.

I voted no because the treaty was rejected before, changed slightly and presented to us with basically a new sticker over the old treaty with vigourous smiles and nodding from its creators. Thats very annoying, we are not thick.

I voted no because the treaty is a complete mish mash of unrelated things which confused the issues to the point that neither side could irrefutably say anything, because no one was 100% sure of their ground.

I would consider myself pro-european.

So i would ask the proponents of the yes vote for the treaty, to come back again soon, but this time...

Present the part of the treaty which requires the constitutional change clearly, consicely, and impartially, and dont treat the electorate like sheep. Put forward a more convincing argument than "Because we say so" I didnt like it whem my parents gave that reason for doing something, and I dont like it when my government and their opponents do it.

Oh and Sinn Fein/Libertas/Coir... my no vote was absolutely nothing to do with any of the bull**** you put forward.

Rb · 13-06-2008 1:30pm

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others?

cornbb · 13-06-2008 1:31pm

ircoha wrote: »

The unbridled arrogance imbedded in the above is breathtaking, but not surprising.

Its not arrogance, its a simple question. I'll accept the result of the vote, I just don't know if I can comprehend it.

If the result is declared a No, the question to be asked is how did the vast majority of the elected politicians fail to convince intelligent people that it was worth voting for.

The onus was not on the politicians to convince anyone either way, the onus was on the voters to inform themselves. It sounds to me like you had a "No" in your head right from the top.

The Yes side by and large preached to the electorate in a patronizing and off-hand way. There was not an ounce of humility in the whole campaign.

Voting because someone felt patronised or browbeaten and felt a backlash is required is bad. Voting because you were duped into believing lies is worse. Did you vote based on any of the issues contained within the treaty? If so, you might understand that a protest vote has consequences.

MSporty · 13-06-2008 1:31pm

Its called democracy folks, we were given the choice of Yes or No. So we are all entitled to choose either without being questioned about it. It is a secret ballot afterall

suimhneas · 13-06-2008 1:31pm

casue im a member of the fishing community and Europe has made our lives impossible, could not see one benifit for me to vote yes, would be like selling my community down the river, and there has been enough of that done already. No means NO

biko · 13-06-2008 1:33pm

I think that just because you put a few cherries on top of a turd doesn't make it better.

My message to EU is "No, this is not good enough and I do not agree with you".

caoimhemo · 13-06-2008 1:33pm

I voted NO and I am very happy that the NO vote seems to have won
Why should we be bullied by politicians into changing our constitution to allow the EU to have more power over our country
We were luckily allowed to vote and a lot of European people are thankful to us as they did not have the opportunity to have a say in their Country
I think its a great day to be Irish

cornbb · 13-06-2008 1:36pm

suimhneas wrote: »

casue im a member of the fishing community and Europe has made our lives impossible, could not see one benifit for me to vote yes, would be like selling my community down the river, and there has been enough of that done already. No means NO

I can at least respect that. If someone has been tangibly hard-done by by the EU then a No vote is fair enough.

Voting no because "I don't sign a contract I don't understand" is bullsh*t. Ticking "No" is signing a contract too, people! Wait and see.

Let me rephrase the question I put in my first post: As someone who voted No, will you now shoulder the responsibility of dealing with the consequences of the treaty result, and if so what do you intend to do? What message do you intend to send?

cornbb · 13-06-2008 1:37pm

biko wrote: »

My message to EU is "No, this is not good enough and I do not agree with you".

You haven't even come close to answering my initial question. How do you propose we get a better deal?

EDIT: same question for whitser below

whitser · 13-06-2008 1:37pm

its quite clear what message was sent to europe. that ireland isnt a land full of sheep that will swallow anthing the eu hands us. we dont need people in brussells telling us how to run our affairs. yes ireland has done well out of europe but that doesnt mean we have to prostitute our soverignty and our ability to do what we want in our intersts. the fact that europe was willing to sell irish farmers down the river shows how little regard they have for us. ireland meens nothing to the big players as far as policy is concerened.

TelePaul · 13-06-2008 1:40pm

cornbb wrote: »

You haven't even come close to answering my initial question. How do you propose we get a better deal?

EDIT: same question for whitser below

I think the 'No' camp - those who are interested in some type of re-negotiation - have committed the classic mistake of cutting off their communal nose to to spite their communal face.

TelePaul · 13-06-2008 1:41pm

whitser wrote: »

its quite clear what message was sent to europe. that ireland isnt a land full of sheep that will swallow anthing the eu hands us. we dont need people in brussells telling us how to run our affairs. yes ireland has done well out of europe but that doesnt mean we have to prostitute our soverignty and our ability to do what we want in our intersts. the fact that europe was willing to sell irish farmers down the river shows how little regard they have for us. ireland meens nothing to the big players as far as policy is concerened.

If that really was your message, it really wasn't clear at all.

widget64 · 13-06-2008 1:41pm

seamus wrote: »

These amendments could only be made if the people we vote in to make such decisions for us, i.e. our government, agreed with them.
In what respect? Where in the treaty were we to lose this power?

The entire thing I agreed with. I saw absolutely nothing in the treaty which I had any objection to.

Ireland’s voting weight would be reduced from 2% at present to 0.8%, while Germany’s would increase from 8% to 17%.

In my view the government has lost the respect of the people. I wouldnt trust the government to make all the decisions. My brother met Brian Lenihan during the week and asked was he still taking the pay rise and he said he couldnt answer thats one for the government. What the hell is he part off?

caoimhemo · 13-06-2008 1:43pm

TelePaul wrote: »

I think the 'No' camp - those who are interested in some type of re-negotiation - have committed the classic mistake of cutting off their communal nose to to spite their communal face.

Why?
Are they going to ban us from Europe now or tell all Europeans working in Ireland to come home and they will create jobs for them in their own countries
We have done a lot for Europe also, its not a one way street

whitser · 13-06-2008 1:46pm

cornbb wrote: »

You haven't even come close to answering my initial question. How do you propose we get a better deal?

EDIT: same question for whitser below

thats for the politicans to do. but at least now they know that our yes vote is garaunteed and they better come back with something better. as for the eu. if they have to threaten states with punishments for not towing the line then maybe its time to pull out. europe is about the people of europe not the poitical elite and super rich. france and holland both rejected this treaty. we elect politicians we tell them what to do not the other way around.

eigrod · 13-06-2008 1:47pm

jackal wrote: »

I voted no because I dont agree with the fact that we were told to vote cos we say you should, and if you dont... the bunny gets it.

I voted no because I dont sign contracts I dont understand. I especially dont sign contracts I dont understand with people threatening me.

I voted no because no means no change, and I did not see any compelling reasons for me as a citizen to change things. The proposed changes may suit the EU politicians, but we are being asked to change our constitution, which means its not simply a mere technicality which is of no concern.

I voted no because the treaty was rejected before, changed slightly and presented to us with basically a new sticker over the old treaty with vigourous smiles and nodding from its creators. Thats very annoying, we are not thick.

I voted no because the treaty is a complete mish mash of unrelated things which confused the issues to the point that neither side could irrefutably say anything, because no one was 100% sure of their ground.

I would consider myself pro-european.

So i would ask the proponents of the yes vote for the treaty, to come back again soon, but this time...

Present the part of the treaty which requires the constitutional change clearly, consicely, and impartially, and dont treat the electorate like sheep. Put forward a more convincing argument than "Because we say so" I didnt like it whem my parents gave that reason for doing something, and I dont like it when my government and their opponents do it.

Oh and Sinn Fein/Libertas/Coir... my no vote was absolutely nothing to do with any of the bull**** you put forward.

:applause:

+1

oh, and because I am extremely extremely suspicious of anything that Dick Roche is associated with, in a political sense might i add.

What message were you trying to send? [Not "why did you vote No?"]

Comments