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

BlitzKrieg

turgon wrote: »

I dont know what the big deal is, Libertas and Coir were a lot less present in Cork than the Yes side. They probably just focused on Dublin.

well they choked my home town thurles (libertas) they were everywhere. Every billboard was huge libertas ad, my mums workplace was flooded by flyers for them (as was our home),

The bitterness on this thread is unbelievable. The yes side have not got what they were obviously divinely entitled to and are among other things claiming that most/all people voted No out of ignorance and are blatantly ignoring the rational reasonings of the No-side and dismissing them with silly old reasons like the fear that the EU might encroach on nations sovereignty.

I am actually offended now. Bitter? the yes side are not contesting the vote, they are asking very simply what now and are being for the most part very practical about it. This thread is asking what now? How do we turn the result into something practical. I've offered practical suggestions and they have been outright ignored, still posts pour in about vague wishes, we want this we want that, and all that it is being pointed out is that a vast majority of it is unpractical in the political enviroment. This is politics, which means once you know what you want you have to plan out the steps to get that. We have all just taken our first step and many of you seem to know what you want, what is being asked is what will our next step?

Do you want de-evolved status within the EU? We will remain as a market trader (even part of the euro) but politically we will leave the EU? Then lets talk about how to negotiate that?

Do you want to perserve the status quo? The question is then what is the status quo? How do we preserve that while the other states push on? We could go with a de-evolved status like I mentioned above, but how far do we want to go on that, back to EEC standard, keeping our current status quo will be excessively difficult, we cant keep our commissioner in its current role because it will be gone by january regardless of Lisbon. We could push to abolish our commisinor and instead establish a unique diplomatic link to the EU, where we would have a single minister in the EU (who we vote for) to represent Irish interests instead. It means we will have no role in creating EU legaslation, but it wont apply to us, we could just opt for the ability for our foriegn minister to have a veto if a legaslation threatens irish interests. But we wont be able to propose new laws.

But even then there are huge amount of problems about the interests of other states.


There is also the problem that I cant sometimes fiqure out what people want.

You want the EU to stop interfering with Irish interests, dictating to us laws that we must obey.

Then the whole thing flips and you want the EU to directly interfere with the policies of other states in their legaslation to force referendums on states.

You cant have it both ways? One is the EU being a federal superstate, the other is the EU being an international institute of soverign nations.


I am honestly offended by being called bitter, I was just trying to help, as are alot of people in here.

irish_bob

mumhaabu wrote: »

My message to Europe is stop interfering in our affairs, as ordinary consumers we do not benefit from the European union. The killed our duty free and are watching to tax us at every opportunity. Imposing fines for nonsense like global warming is a regressive move.

Ireland did not benefit hugely from the EU and any benefit we got is now a negative. All I am hearing is "infrastructure" "infrastructure", if those rose tinted liberals cared to cycle outside their leafy burbs of D4, they would realise the Ireland has absolutely **** infrastructure, we don't have broadband, we don't have high speed rail, we have a few miles of motorways, (most of which are tolled), care to visit a hospital? or take a look at how we get raped for garbage collection. The Infrastructure arquement is nothing but a load of nonsense.

And then when ordinary Joe Soap like myself gets a brainwave and says "you know what I'll shop abroad in the free market for say an Automobile", what happens you get hammered with VRT which is an import tariff on Vehicles.

you would think the eu was china and ireland was tibet, from readind the replies by the no voters of why they did so , it appears to me that alot of people in this country have huge self esteem issues and need perhaps to pay a visit each week to someone who might help them in that area

boo hoo if you feel ireland is a victim of the eu , what garbage, boo hoo if you feel the goverment was being mean by telling you its better if you vote yes

compared to the other power blocks of the world , the usa , russia , china , the eu is a truly benign figure , lets be part of it , not row our own boat out to uncharterd watters

who do we think we are , do you think russia will give a **** what ireland says or china , the countries of the eu are relativly small on there own , as a unit , there a powerfull political and economic block which is just what is needed when we have much less benign forces like the afforementioned russians and chineese with such energy and manufacturing clout nowadays

lets cop on to ourselves and not be so short sighted and self indulgent

i sometimes think this country needs a healthy dose of a dictatorship to bring it to its senses what with all theese imaginitive dark forces ( eu ) at play

thecaptain

oscarBravo wrote: »

..

Am I the only one who sees the problem?

NO. But its a great problem to have. At least it holds the Fat Cats back for a while longer.

thecaptain

oscarBravo wrote: »

I disagree with your analogy, but to extend it:

EU: "What happened?"
Ireland: "Lisbon was broken."
EU: "Oh? How do we fix it?"
Ireland: <stoney silence>

EU: "What happened?"
Ireland: "Lisbon was broken."
EU: "Oh? How do we fix it?"
Irish People: "let us off this runaway train"

grahamo

raido9 wrote: »

I cant believe there's people with this train of thought. That is the most backward thinking I've seen on this thread (and there were some contenders). You really are whats wrong with this country.

Its too late, but next time there's a referendum, vote on the issue, not as a grudge against those you and your peers voted in democratically.

Those are my reasons for voting no and it was my right to vote no. As for what's wrong with this country its certainly not me. I would say whats wrong with this country is self serving TD's who do what is right for themselves and not what is right for their country. They take no responsibility for their f*** ups and blame everyone but themselves when something goes wrong. just for once they now have to take responsibility and go back to Brussels with their tails between their legs and explain why they messed up so badly. I hope they are held accountable by their fellow Euro MP's as they can now see how incompetent they really are.
I gave my reasons previously for voting No and I believe there valid reasons.
Why should I trust these people with my childrens future?

So the message I wanted to send to Europe is that my country is being run by idiots and I'm sick of it!

passive

thecaptain wrote: »

EU: "What happened?"
Ireland: "Lisbon was broken."
EU: "Oh? How do we fix it?"
Irish People: "let us off this runaway train"

Let's try a 3rd draft

No Lobby: Irish People, here's an idea right off the top of me head. Now I haven't thought it through so it's probably not brilliant but what the hell, sure I'll just talk and see what comes out. Anyway, how about we say No to the Lisbon Treaty, and show the EU who's boss, and that they can't push old Paddy around, and protect our sovereignty and get all those changes we want and make everything better.

Irish People: That's a good idea!

No Lobby: NO NO, NO NO NO NO, NO NO NO NO, NO NO THERE'S NO LIMITS

Irish People: Alright so, we've voted No!

No Lobby: w00t! TAKE THAT EUROCRATS, VICTORY FOR THE LITTLE PEOPLE.

Irish People: Alright No Lobby, you've had a brilliant idea. Hah! But break it down for me a bit more. What do we actually want to change about the Lisbon Treaty? What exactly were the problems with it that need seeing to?

No Lobby: What? we won!

Irish People: Well... What does our victory involve? What exactly do we want the EU to do for us?

No Lobby: I want out.

Irish People: What do you mean?

No Lobby: I went too far too soon. I didn't know what I was gettin' into. I didn't know you had to follow a good idea with loads more little good ideas. I'm sorry. I'm going to sleep in the spare room.

Of course, going on the posts on here, it seems the "YEAH, ****ING TAKE THAT EU crowd" will need a few days to cool down before they actually wonder what they've voted for and let us know what they want to actually *do* or see *done* with regards to the Lisbon Treaty/our place in the EU.

thecaptain

The people don't want to change anything about the treaty.

They don't want the treaty in any way.

We have been sold out for the last 30 years.

turgon

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I am actually offended now. Bitter?

Apologies for being offending, that was mainly directed at the OP. But in fairness, BlitzKrieg, you are now accusing me of stuff I never said: I don't want Ireland to leave the EU in any shape or form. In fact I laid out my problems with Lisbon a few pages back (and repeated them), rational issues that affected my vote such as militarizations. But everyone ignored them.


You see the OP is (or at least was) very bitter. At around one o'clock yesterday afternoon, he found out it was to be No vote, and came on boards.ie asking his question "what did you want to tell Europe". And in fact the original post is highly disrespectful.

The OP started the thread because he thought there was no substance to the No argument, and he was trying to uncover that. However things went wrong for the OP when people like me listed VALID reasons to vote No, and valid arguments we wanted the government to hear. The OP couldn't take that, so instead ignored posts that contained messages we wanted Europe to hear. He just contunued to say we ere not answering his question, when we clearly were.

Under continuing bombardment, and realizing his plan to uncover the No-sider idiots he thought the entirely composed the NO-side had failed, about 6 hours after starting the thread he declared that the question he asked had no answer, the no message would be sent. Of course this new statement being in complete contrast to the opening post. He just decided himself the best way to ignore our answers was to discredit his own question. Now that is bitter.

yankinlk

and yet we go cap in hand to europe next week to get money for the fisherman.

thecaptain

yankinlk wrote: »

and yet we go cap in hand to europe next week to get money for the fisherman.

Quick memory recap, mate.

The EU imposed quotas are the basis of the problem.

Did you forget that????????????????

turgon

lenny_leonard wrote: »

But in fairness to the No posters here, I don't think Coir or Libertas had as much, if any, influence as they may have had over other people.

Damn right!! It is convenient for the YES side to fence the No-siders in to little groups such as "Euroskeptics", and easy for them to claim that we were all under the influence of mis truths by the No-side (especially Coir, I am ashamed to be on their side).

What it is a lot harder for the YES side to admit, is that there were valid reasons why many voted NO, because this would mean admitting their own stance had some problems. Which, they should have realized that all international treaties have good points and bad points - trying to hide from the bad points did them no favour.

turgon

passive wrote: »

Of course, going on the posts on here, it seems the "YEAH, ****ING TAKE THAT EU crowd" will need a few days to cool down before they actually wonder what they've voted for and let us know what they want to actually *do* or see *done* with regards to the Lisbon Treaty/our place in the EU.

Passive, you have just joined the increasingly large list of people who have blatantly ignored the rational proposals I have laid out a few pages back, instead labeling us all as idiot minded euroskeptics. I know its hard to take other people opinions on board, especcially here, but ignoring them altogether just reflects badly on you.

passive

turgon wrote: »

Passive, you have just joined the increasingly large list of people who have blatantly ignored the rational proposals I have laid out a few pages back, instead labeling us all as idiot minded euroskeptics. I know its hard to take other people opinions on board, especcially here, but ignoring them altogether just reflects badly on you.

I'll scroll back and find your post now, but it's probably obscured by the sea of "**** you and the EU, no means no," which doesn't reflect too well on the idea that your rational proposals are an indication of the No camps communal wishes and that you're anything more than a diamond in the rough, so to speak.

thecaptain wrote: »

Quick memory recap, mate.

The EU imposed quotas are the basis of the problem.

Did you forget that????????????????

Yeah, fish are infinite... Let's just keep at them full steam ahead for infinitey billion years... Quotas are stupid... and ghey.

turgon

passive wrote: »

Yeah, fish are infinite... Let's just keep at them full steam ahead for infinitey billion years... Quotas are stupid... and ghey.

Absolutely true. My mother was giving out about quotas, its so stupid the way people think theres some magic god in the sea who coughs up fish.

BlitzKrieg

Apologies for being offending, that was mainly directed at the OP. But in fairness, BlitzKrieg, you are now accusing me of stuff I never said: I don't want Ireland to leave the EU in any shape or form. In fact I laid out my problems with Lisbon a few pages back (and repeated them), rational issues that affected my vote such as militarizations. But everyone ignored them.

Sorry Turgon, Like your response wasnt specified to me, neither was mine to you, I was addressing a number of different responses I spotted during the thread, from the extreme leaving europe, to ones like yourself who want out of certain parts of the treaty.

By the way, the militerization, is it the militerization in europe as a whole or only in accordance to Ireland you want addressed?

We could not sign Lisbon, let the other states ratify it if they wish, then we would sign an amendment treaty which will have no militerization in it at all?

On removing militerization as whole in Europe, it would be very difficult even in our current situation to push for that. A number of eastern states and of course some of the bigger central states are very much determined to have some form of common defence policy, there is no way we alone could change that. If we could inspire other states for referendum then maybe the growing numbers could sway it (the UK would be a big bonus but looks unlikely) but at the moment there is no practical negotiation ground.

Voipjunkie

turgon wrote: »

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

Doesnt sound democratic no matter how much you twist the representative democracy card.

Yes but what way do you want to change the EU commission to make it more democratic.

thecaptain

Voipjunkie wrote: »

Yes but what way do you want to change the EU commission to make it more democratic.

:eek::eek: You've been had.

Anybody actually believe that??????????

eihcir23

Voipjunkie wrote: »

Yes but what way do you want to change the EU commission to make it more democratic.

Well i cant speak for anyone else, but I would like to see the following:

3-4 nationals of each member state should be put forward by each national parliament, and these should form the pool of potential commissioners.

These people would be elected to their Commission posts by the new parliament, and the parliament would have the power to remove them, either individually or en masse.

You could also rotate the order or timing of each member states putting forward candidates.

Remove all legislative powers from the Commission, return them to the Parliament, and allow the Council of Ministers to veto or amend these laws.

The commission implements law, it shouldn't make it.

The message i want to send is this:
a constitution for europe that all can read and understand
a directly elected president of the council
an actual veto of national parliaments over proposed legislation, as opposed to the fake one we have now.

Keep all the extra powers of parliament in the Treaty, and look at the possibility of limiting the EU powers more strictly. I particularly have a problem with the clause which allows states to exercise their competences only to the extent which the union has not.

Thats all, for now....

And a vote for all the citizens on all of this.

turgon

Ok eihcir23. Maybe you should write a letter, cause unfortunately the ears of Europe aren't plugged into boards.ie.

I could see some problems with your proposels, a directly elected president would be hard to pull off.

molloyjh

turgon wrote: »

And all of ye are complaining theres been no reasons from the No side, I gave mine and no one has made any comment.

Turgon.....yours was the 3rd post in 16 pages that attempted in some way to explain, with reference to the Treaty, exactly why you voted no.

I understand your point re the defense part of the Treaty, although I have a differing personal opinion thats all it is. Its not a point either of us can state is "right" or "wrong" per se.

I personally think that the Citizens Initiative would have been a very positive step and the fact that is was a petition from EU citizens that got it included proves that it could work. Also you must remember that the Council of Ministers is made up of people we directly elect. The Parliament is also made up of MEPs whom we directly elect. The Treaty was going to open the Council of Ministers up to the public also increaseing transparency and accountability.

The "sneaky dealings" is a point that I will concede also. I personally don't know enough about the Constitution (was too interested in drink in those days to worry about things like politics!) to know what is different in Lisbon, and I haven't the first clue what the Dutch or French disliked about it.

However I do not in any way agree that the matter in which it is ratified is an EU matter. If there's one thing I've learned its that politicians are not to be trusted and that its up to the people to ensure that the system works for us. We had the referendum because somebody (Crotty) brought a case to our Supreme Court to ensure that we had that right. It was a member of the electorate that ensured we had that right on Thursday and noone else, because noone else was ever going to do it. Did this happen anywhere else in the EU? Did anyone else stand up and insist that their peoples voices be heard in these matters? And if not, why not? To me this is an extension of the "You get the Government you deserve" notion. Someone here made it happen and we got the benefit from it. In the other EU member states noone did the same thing and so have noone to blame but themselves IMHO. Maybe this will create enough outrage to force change in the other EU states. Noone can force this to happen for the people. They must take responsibility for that themselves.

At the end of the day you voted the way you did for reasons that related to the Treaty and that I can understand and respect, regardless of whether we agree or not. Fair play to you. However you must acknowledge that in 16 pages the fact that you're only the 3rd person to do as much does say a lot.

molloyjh

turgon wrote: »

Join NATO. Leave defense out of the EU, I don't see why its so necessary.

Oh yes, because I suggested those words be added. You know what I mean: give the power back to the people and away from the EU commission. Other such measures etc. The citizens initiative was added to give an illusion of democracy: it doesn't even have to be acted upon.

And when I mean direct democracy I mean letting people vote on the future of Europe. As we have seen today, representatives don't exactly mirror their constituents wishes.

I think we're starting to get somewhere here. Apologies for the delayed response, haven't been around the last few days so only catching up now.

First with regards the common defence issue. I see your point Turgon, although I don't have a problem with the common defense element of the Treaty, especially given that we can opt out of it. I reckon if a majority of other states want it and we get to opt out then we should leave it in.

Secondly I just want to restate a previous point regarding the Citizens Initiative. The point was that 1m citizens could bring something before the EU, however the EU was not obliged to act. Given that 1m citizens is about 0.2% of the population it would be crazy to expect that the EU have to act on these petitions. However the fact that petition made that part of the Treaty possible proves that it can work.

Finally you say that representatives don't always mirror their constituents. If this is the case and they are not truly representing those who elect them, then why are they elected at all in the first place? If they are going to go against the wishes of the majority of their area then they shouldn't be elected into the position by those people in the first place?

molloyjh

Sparks wrote: »

Oh yes, that's perfectly obvious. What I wanted to know was where we agreed we had an obligation to provide an answer, because I know I never saw that before the vote...

So you think we should just be able to say No and leave it at that? Provide no explanation, no suggestion for ways forward, nothing? Just say no, pick up our ball and go home?

molloyjh

turgon wrote: »

Thats lovely.

"aims of the union" - I think you mean "aims of the Unions' politicians". That maybe dont altogether represent the will of the people...(oh but of course the old yes side argument: we voted for them at the ballot box and now they do everything we think should be done). Maybe a major program should be undertaken to see where the citizens want to go.

And maybe people should start voting for politicians that do represent their will. But thats an entirely different debate (re the state of modern Western democracy and the role the voter has in it - which may be a good one to start up on the politics board???? What do ye all think?). Its frustrating that people will a) vote for someone to speak for them and then b) say they don't trust those people to speak for them. What the hell were the Irish people voting for at all then so?????

molloyjh

turgon wrote: »

Well done BMH, just take and extreme option and label it as the only one.

Other option: let each country vote for the commissioner they will be represented by. One country, one commissioner. And before being labeled as undemocratic: that would be giving voices to the minorities (ex Irish)

That would defeat the pupose of the Commission entirely. The commissioners are meant to represent the EU as a whole. As soon as you start to get member states to hold elections for a commissioner then the commissioners would be answerable to that member state only. For example if we voted for the commissioner who eventually became the Commissioner for Agriculture he would be obliged to favour Ireland in that area, because if he didn't he probably wouldn't be elected by us again.

Secondly there are too many commissioners as it is....I mean Commssioner for Multilinguism, with his own staff and Department! There is no way they can continue that, especially if/when new members join the union.

dresden8

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?

seamus wrote: »

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

Except of course that it would seem most yes voters on this board want to piss all over this bit.

To come into force, the Treaty of Lisbon has to be ratified by all twenty-seven Member States. It is up to each individual Member State to decide according to its own constitutional rules if this ratification will be through a referendum or through a parliamentary vote

http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/faq/index_en.htm#21

molloyjh

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0618/1213735259849.html?via=rel

There is an interesting piece in todays Irish Times that says a survey has found the following:

- 40% of No voters didn't understand the Treaty
- 20% voted to mantain our soverignty
- 17% voted because they did not trust the Irish Government
- 10% voted to protect Irish nuetrality
- 10% voted to retain our commissioner
- 8% voted to protect our tax system

I find that very strange given that this totals up to 105%, however it was an EU Commission run survey that, if even relatively representative, proves that the No vote won due, not in fact to relevant and reasonable objections to the Treaty, but due to a serious lack of understanding of it.

limklad

molloyjh wrote: »

Its frustrating that people will a) vote for someone to speak for them and then b) say they don't trust those people to speak for them. What the hell were the Irish people voting for at all then so?????

It is even more frustrating that they the best of a bad bunch. You should have seen the state of the others bunch that did not get elected.:eek:

limklad

molloyjh wrote: »

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0618/1213735259849.html?via=rel

There is an interesting piece in todays Irish Times that says a survey has found the following:

- 40% of No voters didn't understand the Treaty
- 20% voted to mantain our soverignty
- 17% voted because they did not trust the Irish Government
- 10% voted to protect Irish nuetrality
- 10% voted to retain our commissioner
- 8% voted to protect our tax system

I find that very strange given that this totals up to 105%, however it was an EU Commission run survey that, if even relatively representative, proves that the No vote won due, not in fact to relevant and reasonable objections to the Treaty, but due to a serious lack of understanding of it.

Big difference from the Indo poll which claims that most (3/4) though that the government could get another deal.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lisbon-treaty/revealed-why-we-voted-no-to-lisbon-1412027.html
Which Paper is lying?

marco_polo

limklad wrote: »

Big difference from the Indo poll which claims that most (3/4) though that the government could get another deal.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lisbon-treaty/revealed-why-we-voted-no-to-lisbon-1412027.html
Which Paper is lying?

Where does it suggest in the Irish Times poll that this was not the case?

**EDIT ** Just read the Times poll, it is the same poll in more detail.

DishonestPikey

eihcir23 wrote: »

3-4 nationals of each member state should be put forward by each national parliament, and these should form the pool of potential commissioners.

This I have heard alot. Almost always preceeded by or followed by the "we don't want a united states of europe" line. Funny because in the united states senate, each state is represented equally with 2 members each regardless of population.

Seems you do want a USE after all.