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

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

Options
24567…12

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    caoimhemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 78 ✭✭caoimhemo


    whitser wrote: »
    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.
    Completely agree with you


  • Options
    #33
    How Strange
    Registered Users Posts: 6,339 ✭✭✭How Strange


    ircoha wrote: »
    The unbridled arrogance imbedded in the above is breathtaking, but not surprising.
    I agree with this. I'm always voted Yes to treaties.

    Why did I vote no? Because I feel that the idea of democracy is becoming more and more diluted in the new EU. We voted against Nice 1 for whatever a mulitude of reason, then the government and the EU said 'oh that doesn't count' and they came back with Nice 2 and told us to make the right decision this time. And we did as far as the EU were concerned.

    Three years ago the French and Dutch voted down the prototype of this treaty. What happens? The treaty is rehashed in Lisbon and all the heads of state orchestrate it so that referendums aren't required to pass it. Poor Bertie couldn't get out of it so easily so it was down to Ireland who is probably representative of 1.5% of the EU's population to ratify a treaty that will change the face of the EU as we know it.

    And the laugh is that the EU talks about a democratic deficit. What the bloody hell is the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty if not a sure indication that the deficit is increasing not decreasing.

    I've also just read on ireland.com that the French Prime Minister said they'll just ignore the Irish result and go ahead anyway.

    So democracy shemocracy really.

    And we look disdainfully on American style democracy!


  • Options
    #34
    jackal
    Registered Users Posts: 794 ✭✭✭jackal


    cornbb wrote: »
    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.

    Ok, by saying its bull**** you have completely blown it out of the water with both well reasoned and incontrovertible evidence. Thanks for your input.

    "Wait and see"... more veiled threats?


  • Options
    #35
    Jim_Are_Great
    Closed Accounts Posts: 652 ✭✭✭Jim_Are_Great


    dresden8 wrote: »
    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?

    There are many things in there that persuaded me to vote yes. Tying up loose ends from Nice, such as the equal rotation of commissioners, is a big one. The citizens' initiative was, for me, a step in the right direction at least. I wasn't unconditionally in favour of every aspect of the treaty, but I also doubt that any "better deal" will be done if and when this amendment is rejected.
    ircoha wrote: »
    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.
    It was a referendum on a constitutional amendment, not on the quality of any party's campaign.

    ircoha wrote: »
    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.
    Partly, perhaps, because they also had to deal with a great number of unintelligent ones.
    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
    What? So to have an opinion on something you have to be alive contemporaneously?
    ircoha wrote: »
    Arguments such as, we spent the last 7 years putting it together etc just dont wash.
    No, but there are a lot of other perfectly cogent arguments that do.

    The "why did you vote no" question remains largely unanswered on this thread.


  • Options
    #36
    Zube
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,502 ✭✭✭Zube


    How Strange wrote: »
    I've also just read on ireland.com that the French Prime Minister said they'll just ignore the Irish result and go ahead anyway.

    Excellent.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    cornbb
    Registered Users Posts: 6,790 ✭✭✭cornbb


    whitser wrote: »
    thats for the politicans to do.

    Its for the politicians who campaigned for a Yes vote to do. The same politicians who put years of toil and sweat into what was a good deal for Ireland (I have yet to see a suggestion in this thread of what a better deal would be, so don't try to suggest that the Lisbon treaty wasn't a great deal until you can clearly suggest how it could be better). The other politicians, the ones who suggested "lets get a better deal" never suggested what such a better deal might be, can just sit back and laugh at the rest of us now.
    but at least now they know that our yes vote is garaunteed and they better come back with something better.

    How exactly could it be better? I'm sick of repeating myself.


  • Options
    #38
    woodzyx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 61 ✭✭woodzyx


    jackal wrote: »
    I voted no because I dont sign contracts I dont understand.

    My advice to you in this case would be to not to vote at all, because if you haven't got an understanding for one side of the contract then you cannot possibly have an understanding for the other... ie. the NO side.


  • Options
    #39
    cornbb
    Registered Users Posts: 6,790 ✭✭✭cornbb


    jackal wrote: »
    Ok, by saying its bull**** you have completely blown it out of the water with both well reasoned and incontrovertible evidence. Thanks for your input.

    "Wait and see"... more veiled threats?

    How exactly could I, a lowly Irish citizen, be a threat? Nobody has threatened Ireland. They have matter-of-factly stated that a no vote would marginalise Ireland. That is an observation of an obvious fact, not a threat. If the aran islanders blocked a law of unequivocal importance to the rest of Ireland how do you think we would react? We would shun them and go ahead, leaving them in the cold. This is exactly what the EU will, and should, do.


  • Options
    #40
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,762 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    widget64 wrote: »
    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.

    This was answered at least several times in numerous threads. For a start the idea that the Treaty can be amended without our vote is nonsense. The Treaty could only be amended by ratification from the member states in accordance with the rules as stated in their constitution. So if the change wasn't going to change ou constitution the Dail and the Seanad would cast the vote. If it impacted the Constitution we would havea referendum on it. It is summarised quite well here (and I have posted this link on this same topic on numerous occasions):

    http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_gov.html

    People who say that they have been on this forum and not been able to get clear answers obviously haven't been trying too hard as on nearly every page of every thread there is information and/or links to sources etc.


  • Options
    #41
    How Strange
    Registered Users Posts: 6,339 ✭✭✭How Strange


    jackal wrote: »
    Oh and Sinn Fein/Libertas/Coir... my no vote was absolutely nothing to do with any of the bull**** you put forward.
    +1
    I don't align myself with any of these associations. I abhore SF and their scaremongering did nothing to persuade me on which way I would vote.
    The only person that had any 'influence' (and I say this in the mildest, most diluted sense) was Patrica McKenna on Prime Time because her honesty and concise understanding points were refreshing among a sea of scaremongering (SF, Libertas et al) and patronising (every other political party).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    bill_ashmount
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,047 ✭✭✭bill_ashmount


    How Strange wrote: »


    I've also just read on ireland.com that the French Prime Minister said they'll just ignore the Irish result and go ahead anyway.

    So democracy shemocracy really.

    There was 2 differing opinions from the French: IMO it is dead.....

    "The most important thing is that ratification should continue in other countries (if Ireland has voted "no") and I have good reasons to think that the process of ratification will continue," Mr Jouyet told LCI television.

    "We would have to see with the Irish at the end of the ratification process how we could make it work and what legal arrangement we could come to."

    His view of was at odds with comments by French Prime Minister Francois Fillon, who said yesterday:

    "If the Irish people decide to reject the treaty of Lisbon, naturally, there will be no treaty of Lisbon."


  • Options
    #43
    whitser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,038 ✭✭✭whitser


    first of all come back with a treaty that the ordinary man on the street can understand. look the pros and cons were put to the people and we said no. if the 3 biggest parties cant sell a deal to the people then its a bad deal. its quite clear that even ff,fg and labour voters went against this treaty. if they cant sell it to their own then something is rotten with it.


  • Options
    #44
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,762 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    thecaptain wrote: »
    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.

    Holy moly I'm against Europe!? :eek:

    Holy smokes we've been sold out by globalist leaders in the form of generous hand-outs, free trade and foreign investment that has been one of the driving facotrs of the Celtic Tiger!? :eek:

    How dare they! :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #45
    eigrod
    Registered Users Posts: 7,599 ✭✭✭eigrod


    cornbb wrote: »
    If the aran islanders blocked a law of unequivocal importance to the rest of Ireland how do you think we would react?

    Did the people of the rest of the EU tell us that this was a "law of unequivocal importance" to them ? If they did, I must have missed it.


  • Options
    #46
    dats_right
    Registered Users Posts: 1,168 ✭✭✭dats_right


    I'm a little disappointed that the Irish people are set to reject the Lisbon Treaty, but that's the democratic will of the people so fair enough. Having said that I'm more than a little annoyed with those on the 'No' side who told blatant lies in an effort to scaremonger people on issues that had nothing to do with the treaty. And I'm equally annoyed with those people who claim to have voted no because "they didn't understand it", can these people not take some personal responsibility? Maybe, they could have got off their arses, tore themselves away from Coronation Street or some other equally important activity and read some of the literature. I mean it was bombarded at you from every angle, if these people were in school and told a teacher I don't understand after the teacher spent so much time to explain a subject, they would be sent packing off to the special class with all of the other special boys and girls! That mightn't be a very P.C. thing to say, but anybody, in my opinion, who voted no because they didn't understand it are either thick or incredibly lazy. Fair enough vote no because you are opposed on real issues, but voting no out of laziness or thickness that's another story!


  • Options
    #47
    whitser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,038 ✭✭✭whitser


    some of the most intelligent judges around europe couldnt make head nor tales of the treaty,its designed to confuse.


  • Options
    #48
    ircoha
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,290 ✭✭✭ircoha


    dats_right wrote: »
    I'm a little disappointed that the Irish people are set to reject the Lisbon Treaty, but that's the democratic will of the people so fair enough. Having said that I'm more than a little annoyed with those on the 'No' side who told blatant lies in an effort to scaremonger people on issues that had nothing to do with the treaty. And I'm equally annoyed with those people who claim to have voted no because "they didn't understand it", can these people not take some personal responsibility? Maybe, they could have got off their arses, tore themselves away from Coronation Street or some other equally important activity and read some of the literature. I mean it was bombarded at you from every angle, if these people were in school and told a teacher I don't understand after the teacher spent so much time to explain a subject, they would be sent packing off to the special needs class because they were plain and simply thick! That mightn't be a very P.C. thing to say, but anybody, in my opinion, who voted no because they didn't understand it are either thick or incredibly lazy. Fair enough vote no because you are opposed on real issues, but voting no out of laziness or thickness that's another story!

    Out of order: please edit this post:mad:


  • Options
    #49
    passive
    Registered Users Posts: 2,403 ✭✭✭passive


    widget64 wrote: »
    Ireland’s voting weight would be reduced from 2% at present to 0.8%, while Germany’s would increase from 8% to 17%.

    That's just completely and utterly not true though? Should details like that have affected your decision, maybe? :confused:


    "Can you explain the new voting system in the Council of Ministers?

    The standard system of voting in the Council of Ministers will be “Qualified majority voting” (QMV). It will be based on the principle of the double majority. Decisions in the Council of Ministers will need the support of 55% of Member States (currently 15 out of 27 EU countries) representing a minimum of 65% of the EU's population. To make it impossible for a very small number of the most populous Member States to prevent a decision from being adopted, a blocking minority must comprise at least four Member States; otherwise, the qualified majority will be deemed to have been reached even if the population criterion is not met.

    The European Council agreed that the new system will take effect in 2014. In the first three years, until 2017, a Member State may request that an act be adopted in accordance with the qualified majority as defined in the current Treaty of Nice."


  • Options
    #50
    Spud83
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,608 ✭✭✭Spud83


    I voted No because the rest of Europe’s citizens are not being allowed a vote on the treaty. Does this make me a bad person?


  • Options
    #51
    whitser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,038 ✭✭✭whitser


    i voted no simply because if the eu is going to threaten states for not doing its bidding then something is rotten at its core. the eu was supposed to be co-operation between states not saying if you dont do what we ask then you'll be sorry and we'll go on with out you. the people rejected this trash cos its bad for ireland. as i said if the 3 biggest parties cant sell this to their people then something is defo rotten.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    bmaxi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,859 ✭✭✭bmaxi


    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.

    I think this is the nub of the matter. Basically it's mistrust of politicians in general and this Government in particular. People are reluctant to give these people any more power when they see the abuse of the power they already have, the ordinary Joe Soap wants to hold on to some say in the matter. Simplistic, maybe but then it often is.


  • Options
    #53
    gixerfixer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 759 ✭✭✭gixerfixer


    I voted No because of the promised setting up of a european army.When the EU come back to me with an improved deal for me and my family i'll see how i vote then.Hard luck the Yes campaign:)


  • Options
    #54
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    The expansion of QMV and changing of voting weights did not sit well with me at all. Nor did things such as the creation of uniform European intellectual property rights. And that is why I voted no.


  • Options
    #55
    jackal
    Registered Users Posts: 794 ✭✭✭jackal


    cornbb wrote: »
    How exactly could I, a lowly Irish citizen, be a threat? Nobody has threatened Ireland. They have matter-of-factly stated that a no vote would marginalise Ireland. That is an observation of an obvious fact, not a threat. If the aran islanders blocked a law of unequivocal importance to the rest of Ireland how do you think we would react? We would shun them and go ahead, leaving them in the cold. This is exactly what the EU will, and should, do.

    Well, I was not referring to *you* as the originator of the threats, rather the nature of the "vote yes or else" campaign. You seem to have a very weak grasp of democracy. The only group of people (they are supposed to be the ones that form the basis of democracy) who were asked, have rejected it.

    If the politicians of Europe decide to somehow ostracize us and press ahead, thats fine. We have decided (overwhelmingly) as a country that we did not want to ratify this treaty. The facade that the EU is a democratic institution will be shattered. I am quite happy to NOT be a part of an EU where the politicians think they know better than us, and we are a hindrance to them.

    To use your analogy about the Aran Islands... What has actually happened is the Irish government wanted to pass some obscure laws that nobody understands. This law was put to the people and was rejected. They come up with a new version where they don't have to ask the people. A quirk of the law however means that the Aran Islands have to vote for the law to be passed. The government run a campaign there something along the lines of "Sure we have been doing nothing but helping youse scroungers out for years, vote yes on this or we are cutting you off, and don't bloody ask any questions because you would not understand it anyway".


  • Options
    #56
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    jackal wrote: »
    To use your analogy about the Aran Islands... What has actually happened is the Irish government wanted to pass some obscure laws that nobody understands.

    *facepalm*

    I'm fully convinced that everyone who uses this excuse is just trying to cover for their own laziness.


  • Options
    #57
    Dr. Baltar
    Registered Users Posts: 1,252 ✭✭✭Dr. Baltar


    I am happy the way Europe works right now and I do not want it to change.


  • Options
    #58
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,762 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    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.
    This is totally unrelated to the Treaty itself so should not impact your vote.
    jackal wrote: »
    I voted no because I dont sign contracts I dont understand. I especially dont sign contracts I dont understand with people threatening me.
    If you don't understand a contract you don't tear it up straight away. You have a stab at figuring it out. If others can figure it out (and we could) why can't you? I'm not being elitist or anything because I really don't think I'm much smarter than most. So if I could figure it out there's no reason, to my mind at least, that others couldn't. Either way its a shoddy reason for voting against something. You'd be better off abstaining if you don't know enough about it.
    jackal wrote: »
    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.
    No does not in any way mean no change. In fact it means there's a much greater level of uncertainty regarding the future. One potential outcome could be that the rest of the EU moves on ahead without us. If they do have you any real idea how that would pan out for us? And regardless of the political consequences, a No vote creates uncertainty over the EUs future (not its survival, but its direction). In the current economic climate uncertainty is going to cause problems. It always does. Can we really afford that now?
    jackal wrote: »
    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.
    The Treaty was modified somewhat, and the changes made were done so in consultation withe the French and the Dutch Governments. Diplomacy and politics always have an element of to-and-fro about them where a proposal is made, amended slightly to account for certain objections and put forward again. It happens every day.
    jackal wrote: »
    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.
    The Treaty is not a complete mish mash of unrelated things. Above you stated that you didn't understand it, so how do you qualify as being able to state such a thing?

    There are no concrete hard-fast reasons there for the way you voted. In fact there is only one that is anyway relevant and understandable.
    1. Shouldn't impact your vote
    2. Is more of a reason to abstain than vote either way
    3. Is, at very best, debatable. Probably more like wishful thinking.
    4. Is debatable, and while I see the point we should be voting on the merits of the Treaty anyway, not anything else. It shouldn't matter what someone else thinks of it, be they French or another Irishman.
    5. Is not an accurate statement and ties back in with the "You probably should have abstained" point in 2.


  • Options
    #59
    dc69
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,488 ✭✭✭dc69


    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 reason I voted no.

    I was going to vote no,then I actually read up on it for a couple of hours and was swayed towards a yes,but there were a couple of things troubling me and I decided they werent enough to sway my vote and I decided to stick with my initial choice.

    Realistically alot of it was probably down to scare tactics,there was something that I heard about the french guy going to introuce the policy saying something about not wanting to fully clarify his plans as if the Irish found out about them it would give fodder to the no campaign.Things like this troubled me and im sure many others were te same.

    I think the vast majority of people who voted no,did not read any of the information at all.

    There was alot of scare tactics going on from both sides and people are human and when feel threatened will make the choice that they feel will affect little.

    Maybe some people also wanted to embarrass the government and give them a kick up the arse.


  • Options
    #60
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,762 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    MSporty wrote: »
    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

    Noones forcing you to reveal your vote or your reasons. This is all voluntary....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    rather the nature of the "vote yes or else" campaign

    how is that different to the *vote no or else* that was coming from the no campaign?


Advertisement