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

Mr.Nice Guy

kaiser sauze wrote: »

You've just accepted that the treaties were different.

Thanks, my point stands.

I haven't accepted it is different. Putting a Pepsi label on a bottle of Coca Cola and adding two drops of Pepsi doesn't make it a Pepsi. It's still Coke.

mollyjh wrote:

So the 5% difference means they were, wait for it, different and therefore not the same......

See above. If this is the mindset of the Yes camp then we really made the right decision. 95% of it the same and you focus on the 5% alterations which were designed to brush over the 95%.

Sheep.

molloyjh

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Because the EU is a union of nations, not a superstate. I don't think population should come into how much voting strength a country has. Yes we have opt outs in a few crucial areas (though I have my doubts to how long they would have lasted, and anyway, why swap a veto for an opt out?), but that doesn't change the direction in which the EU is moving. It's not a "more democratic" system, it's an alternative democratic system more suited to a superstate than a union of nations.

So you want a democratic system that ignores population? How would that work? The original ratings for QMV factored in population too. As for the areas subject to QMV, they are all areas that are logically dealt with at an EU level, like inter-EU transport etc. In other words where decisions can't be made on a single states basis but needs to be agreed with the other member states too. Anything of purely domestic issue remains in the hands of our Government.

Sherifu

offaly1 wrote: »

My main reason for voting NO was that i didn't understand anything bout the treaty.. i personally not enough information was made available to the public. Maybe if more information was made available i might have been swayed the other way.....

Did you make any effort?

Canada J Soup

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%.

This is quite simply not true. This particular 'No' argument, which only looks at half of the picture and creates a complete distortion of the actual change has been debunked on these boards several times.

And rejecting Lisbon doesn't stop the change to this system anyway. We accepted it in the last referendum.

molloyjh

whitser wrote: »

look. the words tow the line were obviously never used by eu politicians but that was the jist of what they were saying. how hard is it to comprehend that the people of ireland felt this was bad for ireland and voted no. end of. just cos somone didnt understand the treaty doesnt mean they shouldnt vote,the treaty was designed to confuse. if the poitical elite cant draw up something that easily understood then bin it.

So no you can't provide a source? It is hard to comprehend that the Irish people felt it was bad for Ireland when in almost 9 full pages where the OP was "why was it a bad deal" has garnered only 2 responses that could be considered worthwhile, in that the reasons were relevant to the Treaty and an accurate representation of the Treaty. As I have said before I understood the Treaty, and if I did then trust me, anyone can if they really want to.

stewie01

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I haven't accepted it is different. Putting a Pepsi label on a bottle of Coca Cola and adding two drops of Pepsi doesn't make it a Pepsi. It's still Coke.


Sheep.

no its not. its coke with pepsi drops in it. not coke.

molloyjh

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I haven't accepted it is different. Putting a Pepsi label on a bottle of Coca Cola and adding two drops of Pepsi doesn't make it a Pepsi. It's still Coke.



See above. If this is the mindset of the Yes camp then we really made the right decision. 95% of it the same and you focus on the 5% alterations which were designed to brush over the 95%.

Sheep.

So you can't address what the French and Dutch didn't like about the Constitution as I asked then, no? And if not, how can you make any relevant comment on whether the 5% was a sufficient cange or not?

cornbb

molloyjh wrote: »

So you can't address what the French and Dutch didn't like about the Constitution as I asked then, no? And if not, how can you make any relevant comment on whether the 5% was a sufficient cange or not?

Over 128 replies in and nobody has come close to answering my question. What clear message can the No crowd send to the EU about "improving" the treaty? They don't have an answer. The best they can come up with is "I don't like it, try again".

Mr.Nice Guy

stewie01 wrote: »

no its not. its coke with pepsi drops in it. not coke.

Wrong. The Pepsi drops make no difference. It's still Coke.

molloyjh wrote:

So you can't address what the French and Dutch didn't like about the Constitution as I asked then, no? And if not, how can you make any relevant comment on whether the 5% was a sufficient cange or not?

The French and Dutch voted No for a variety of reasons. Good luck to them. That is their right. I can make a relevant comment that the 5% change was insufficient by virtue of INDEPENDENT AND NEUTRAL commentators telling me that it is essentially the same document as one rejected via democratic means.

Hope that clarifies my position for you.

Mr.Nice Guy

cornbb wrote: »

What clear message can the No crowd send to the EU about "improving" the treaty? They don't have an answer. The best they can come up with is "I don't like it, try again".

From my perspective, the following would be welcome...

- The Treaty to be put to countries via referendums as ours was. I want to know that the peoples of Europe support the direction the EU is taking.

- Get a better system of voting which is fairer to countries like ourselves.

- Tone down your militarist ambitions.

carveone

molloyjh wrote: »

Sorry for double post...problem with the connection! an a moderator delete this please? Cheers.

I can barely keep up reading, doubt they'll worry too much after that server hiccup!

raido9

offaly1 wrote: »

My main reason for voting NO was that i didn't understand anything bout the treaty.. i personally not enough information was made available to the public. Maybe if more information was made available i might have been swayed the other way.....

Such a cop out. There was more than enough information out there if you wanted it. Nobody can make you read the literature, thats your responsibility.

If you've made no effort to familiarise yourself with the treaty you should not have voted. Simple really.

cornbb

"London's Times Online is leading with Ireland's No vote to the treaty, which it claims has plunged the European Union into crisis. "

The Guardian said the rejection of the treaty had thrown "the entire project of reshaping the EU into turmoil" while the BBC’s online news service said the vote was "bound to undermine the bloc's public legitimacy and dent its confidence when it faces other big players on the world stage."

CNN online is leading with the headline 'EU crisis looms with Irish 'no' vote',

The Los Angeles Times is describing the situation as "a stunning setback to efforts to draft a modern new European constitution".

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0613/breaking63.htm

This is the reality we are now facing.

Zube

whitser wrote: »

look. the words tow the line were obviously never used by eu politicians

Probably because their interpreter/translator would tell them that the English phrase thay want is "toe the line" so that they wouldn't look illiterate.

Billywalsh

Wonder what impact this will have on the Euro strength. If we lose ground against the dollar we are fecked...

thelordofcheese

How Strange wrote: »

Yes there was. Scaremongering. On both sides. Arrogance and patronising on the part of the YES side.
You get a demographic who aren't politically motivated and and you talk down to them, you scare teh sh!t out of them and what happens?

Well that depends - up to Nice 1 they voted yes. Since then it depends on which way the wind is blowing.

No i don't buy this **** at all. Most people in this country are at least able to read and reason to an adequate degree. Therefore there was nothing stopping them looking into the topic themselves except their own sloth.

For **** sake the referendum commission sent the booklet to your house. you didn't have to do anything! And of course there is the internet, all of mankinds collected information at your fingertips.
And what do you get "DURRR, i can't understand it!"

The only regret i have is i wish i'd enacted my "understand the issue or face testicular trauma" plan.

How Strange

kaiser sauze wrote: »

France and The Netherlands voted on a different matter. Your arguments there are null and void.

I think you'll find it's the same treaty - putting a dickie bow on it and calling it the Lison treaty doesn't make any different.

So this would have made the EU less democratic?

Is it undemocratic to ratify a treaty in all member states at governmental level rather than putting it to the people because of fear that it wouldn't be ratified?

Is it undemocratic to ignore how a country votes to ratify a treaty and then dress it up and wheel it back out again for another referendum? Nice 1 & 2, France & Holland 2005 & Lisbon?

Is it undemocratic for Prime Ministers of member states to have already said that it doesn't matter if the Irish people said no, they'll just carry on regardless and sort the 'Irish' problem out at a later date?

uptherebels

Billywalsh wrote: »

Wonder what impact this will have on the Euro strength. If we lose ground against the dollar we are fecked...

I thought we needed the euro to drop/dollar to rise to make our exports more competitive

raido9

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

From my perspective, the following would be welcome...

- The Treaty to be put to countries via referendums as ours was. I want to know that the peoples of Europe support the direction the EU is taking.

- Get a better system of voting which is fairer to countries like ourselves.

- Tone down your militarist ambitions.

Can you suggest a better system of voting? Ireland are already doing better per capita in the QVM than any of the bigger countries.

If you can come up with something better I'm sure all of Europe would like to hear.

Mr.Nice Guy

raido9 wrote: »

Can you suggest a better system of voting? Ireland are already doing better per capita in the QVM than any of the bigger countries.

If you can come up with something better I'm sure all of Europe would like to hear.

Well for one thing I don't like the fact that we get less votes than countries like Bulgaria for instance who have been in the EU five minutes. Aren't we set to become net contributors in the near future too?

Give us more of a say. Just because we've a small population shouldn't mean our opinions mean less. I hope Europe heard that. :pac:

How Strange

molloyjh wrote: »

Don't quite follow what you mean about switching sides. IMO voting is a right that bears with it the responsibiltiy to be informed about what you are voting for to the best of your ability. Anyone who makes no attempt to inform themselves of the issue(s) at hand are in no position to give reliable judgements on the issue(s).

What I've said is that the 'undecided' and the 'uninformed' have historically had a tendency to swing to the yes side. Then there didn't seem to be a problem having this demographic because it suited the agenda. I'm not arguing the merits of that demographic or whether or not they should have informed themselves. I'm saying that when it suited the agenda to have this demograhic to swing in favour of the yes side then it was a good.

All of sudden the trend is looking like the 'uninformed' and 'undecided' are swinging to the no side and now this demographic is seen as a bad thing.

How Strange

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

His argument isn't null and void

Hey Mr.Nice Guy, I'm a she. But thanks for your support in anyways!

ampjohnny

You ask the question why I voted no.

Apparently I am a dirty RA supporting fenian scumbag, a Europe hater or a complete muppet for voting no

I am a No voter and I happen to love Europe - in a wider sense I consider myself a European and a brother of my English, French, German friends..etc. I have had the pleasure of living in various EU states and have fond memories of same. I am also well aware of how much we Irish have to thank the EU and other member states for our progress and economic development.

The reason i voted No is because I felt i had to (despite my grievances at ever finding myself on the same side as Sinn Fein). European leaders, the people trusted to lead their countries have abandoned democracy and have decided to foister this Treaty upon the people of Europe - in a supposed democratic union of 500 + million people why on earth are we the only ones allowed to vote? Note that word - ALLOWED. The french and dutch upset the applecrat by voting no in the Nice treaty so they have had their voting rights revoked with regard to Lisbon. Unfortunately the majority of them, like the majority of us are happy as long as they can continue watching Big Brother and buying loads of s**t chinese goods at great prices.

Why are you trusting your futures to the self serving cowards who have manipulated their way to the top in various European nations, including our own? Would you trust a Bertie Ahern (who 'won' 80k on the horses and 'forgot' about it - and theres more to come from this mark my words) or a Silvio Berlusconi to decide your best interests? I certainly wouldnt.

If a union wide referendum is held and the Treaty is passed i will abide by it because that is democracy - but I will stand up and be counted for my European brothers who have been shamefully denied their right to have their voice heard.

I'm sure some of you will deride my opinion with the usual verbal masturbation you indulge in but that is my answer to your question as honestly and coherently as i can (be arsed to) put it.

Good day

kiki

The OP asked a question..

I voted no because I dont like being talked down to by politicians who threatened by or called "a Lula" as was stated by Bertie in the US.

I voted no because I dont sign up to agreements I cant read - it was drivel.

I voted know because I didnt se any good need to change the EU - whats the problem with the way it is ?

I voted no because the peoples in the EU were not allowed to vote directly. Some of them were promised a referendum and then not offered it.

As a comitted Eurpoean we need a more democratic method to operate europe, not a bunch of people in Brussels repackaging an old defeated treaty to us and then using threats to convince us to vote a certain way.

molloyjh

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

From my perspective, the following would be welcome...

- The Treaty to be put to countries via referendums as ours was. I want to know that the peoples of Europe support the direction the EU is taking.

- Get a better system of voting which is fairer to countries like ourselves.

- Tone down your militarist ambitions.

1. The EU has no legal right to do this. Every country must ratify the Treaty in accordance with their own constitutional rules. This has been done. If other EU citizens have a problem with their countries procedures for ratifying treaties then it is up to them to push for change. Noone else can interfere.

2. The QMV system is a pretty fair way, giving a single Irish citizen a stronger voice than a single German citizen. It is also set up to ensure that the larger countries can't dictate policy without being too "undemcractic" with respect to population. If you have a better system or weighting lets hear it.

3. The military aspect was in relation to mutual defense. Its not like an EU army is going to start invading Russia or anything.

whitser

how dare the people of ireland make up their own mind on this. in future do exactly what your told by the eu political elite. if they say its good then its good. god damn democracy gets in the way every time.

thelordofcheese

How Strange wrote: »

I think you'll find it's the same treaty - putting a dickie bow on it and calling it the Lison treaty doesn't make any different.

I'll think you'll find it's not. It's similar, but it's not the same.

How Strange wrote: »

Is it undemocratic to ratify a treaty in all member states at governmental level rather than putting it to the people because of fear that it wouldn't be ratified?

Nope, that's perfectly democratic. The treaty of lisbon held no clause on how it had to be ratified beyond "in accordance to each member nations traditions". So in other words it's up to each nation how it ratifies the treaty.
If you've a problem with how other nations operate, take it up with them. Just don't be so transparent as to try and confuse your strawman with the contents of the lisbon treaty.

And as an aside, referenda are illegal in germay, you don't see them crying foul at us because that's how we ratify stuff, do you?

How Strange wrote: »

Is it undemocratic to ignore how a country votes to ratify a treaty and then dress it up and wheel it back out again for another referendum? Nice 1 & 2, France & Holland 2005 & Lisbon?

This is tiresome, you know this is untrue, why keep wheeling it out? Do you really think reality is going to change if you stamp your foot enough times?

How Strange wrote: »

Is it undemocratic for Prime Ministers of member states to have already said that it doesn't matter if the Irish people said no, they'll just carry on regardless and sort the 'Irish' problem out at a later date?

Wait, what? You expected the EU to grind to a halt because we've voted No? Or are you implying that lisbon can be ratified without us, becuase both as stupid statements.

stewie01

you wrong mate its not still coke. its coke thats been diluted with pepsi and if you cant understand that simple concept well....... Did you vote no by any chance

menoscemo

I voted no beacuse I want to live in a Europe where what people want and think actually matters. Not just what politicians and Bureaucrats want. We have proved that democracy still works.
If they can come up with a treaty that the French and the Dutch People want to vote in favour of, thaen I will happily change my vote to Yes.

Billywalsh

uptherebels wrote: »

I thought we needed the euro to drop/dollar to rise to make our exports more competitive

Oil is priced in dollars. At the moment its expensive, imagine if the euro weakens fuel prices will just continue to rise.