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

Mr.Nice Guy

molloyjh wrote: »

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.

They have a moral right to do it. We are talking about extremely important issues here.

molloyjh wrote:

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.

I'm not interested in a 'pretty fair' way. I want more influence for Ireland.

molloyjh wrote:

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

I see no need for an EU army nor the need to have to fund the bloody thing. That money could go towards hospitals or schools. The military wording of the Treaty is dangerous the way I see it.

molloyjh

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

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:

Just because we are a small population doesn't mean our opinions count for more. And this crap about countries who haven't been in the EU as long as us doesn't wash. Its like saying that I'v been voting longer than my younger sisters so my vote is worth more than theirs. Come on......

JC 2K3

molloyjh wrote: »

So you want a democratic system that ignores population? How would that work?

In democracy, a nation is a union of people, all of whom are considered equal and have equal voting power.

The EU is a union of nations, all of whom should be considered equal and have equal voting power, no matter how big or small they are.

molloyjh wrote: »

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.

What's purely domestic or not is hard to determine exactly.

For example, I would prefer if the EU did not interfere with energy or intellectual property policy, personally. I don't see these as having much relevence to the EU.

cornbb

Er, I didn't ask why you voted. I asked what clear message you would like to send back to the EU, seeing as thats what the No campaigners said they wanted to do. I'm still not hearing an answer...

carveone

molloyjh wrote: »

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.

It's funny, but I'd (almost) think that the smaller countries would be happier with this. Like Leitrim getting a bit more voting power for their electorate than big-evil-Dublin. I'd be delira.

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

And some of it was cooperation on UN matters which is just common sense. If you're sitting in Chad somewhere it's nice to be backed up by a country with Herc transports.

Someone yesterday commented that article 11.3 ("Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities.") could be implemented by buying Irish soldiers new shoes or something (joke alert!). I can't imagine Irish soldiers don't take pride in their capabilities and seek to improve them anyway.

menoscemo

cornbb wrote: »

Er, I didn't ask why you voted. I asked what clear message you would like to send back to the EU, seeing as thats what the No campaigners said they wanted to do. I'm still not hearing an answer...

The clear message is go and make a treaty that people actually want not just politicians. If not, leave well alone.

jprender

Has the world stopped spinning or something ?

molloyjh

How Strange wrote: »

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.

Who said it was good? And who is complaining now that wasn't before? Lets face it, we don't really know who is being two-faced about this (although I do believe there are people that are) but I know I wasn't expressing my opinion on the matter on Internet bulliten boards 10 or more years ago. Were they even in widespread use 10 years ago? My stance is as I stated it regardless of when or what the circumstances.

BlitzKrieg

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?

how many other treaties were put to referndum in european states? In the whole history oft the EU with the exception of Ireland, how many treaties were ratified by the people?

seamus

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

They have a moral right to do it. We are talking about extremely important issues here.

No, they have no right to do it. There's no such thing as a "moral right". Are you thinking of "moral obligation"? The EU's moral obligation is to respect each's country's method of ratifying the treaty.

I'm not interested in a 'pretty fair' way. I want more influence for Ireland.

Go look up the meaning of the word "fair". "Fair" doesn't mean, "Giving us preferential treatment".

I see no need for an EU army nor the need to have to fund the bloody thing. That money could go towards hospitals or schools. The military wording of the Treaty is dangerous the way I see it.

The treaty doesn't set out any kind of EU army, nor does it require anyone to fund an EU army. Its sets out a means for *sovereign armies* to co-operate in times of crisis.

thelordofcheese

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

They have a moral right to do it. We are talking about extremely important issues here.

NO. That's the worst thing i've ever heard and you should feel bad.
Doing that would set a terrible preseidence of the EU directly interfering in how member states ratify treaties.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I'm not interested in a 'pretty fair' way. I want more influence for Ireland.

Weren't you complaining about the lack of democracy a second ago?

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I see no need for an EU army nor the need to have to fund the bloody thing. That money could go towards hospitals or schools. The military wording of the Treaty is dangerous the way I see it.

I can't tell you you're wrong here (as much as i feel you are) as it's purely subjective, but i have no issues with the military spending clause. We send our army on UN approved peacekeeping missions, i see nothing wrong with making sure we have them well equiped.

carveone

cornbb wrote: »

Er, I didn't ask why you voted. I asked what clear message you would like to send back to the EU, seeing as thats what the No campaigners said they wanted to do. I'm still not hearing an answer...

I can't find anything on the Libertas/SF websites - just "gimme more". More what? I don't think you'll get an answer. Not that it matters - the Irish government got everything it asked for (according to RTE this am) and nothing on this earth is going to make 500 million people redo a treaty 8 years in the making for 25% of 4 million voters.

BlitzKrieg

The military wording of the Treaty is dangerous the way I see it.

The military wording of the treaty had to be vague enough to allow every country garner to our response to it, to allow countries who have bigger military activity such as the UK and France to contribute while not at the same time forcing smaller or neutral countries like ourselves to contribute in ways that would go against our foriegn policy

molloyjh

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

They have a moral right to do it. We are talking about extremely important issues here.



I'm not interested in a 'pretty fair' way. I want more influence for Ireland.



I see no need for an EU army nor the need to have to fund the bloody thing. That money could go towards hospitals or schools. The military wording of the Treaty is dangerous the way I see it.

1. Moral right or not, it would not stand legally so it doesn't matter. And it would not legally stand in the member states themselves because they are soverign nations. You give out on one hand that we're being told what to do re Lisbon by the EU, and on the other hand you're saying they should override every countries constitution. Thats hypocrasy.

2. In your first point you talk about moral right, and in your second you talk about getting us undue influence. Thats hardly moral at all is it? More hypocrasy.

3. The military wording of the Treaty is that we improve our military relatiev to our ability to do so (or something very similar). It does not state how that should be done or in what kind of timeframe. Its left open on purpose because smaller nations like ourselves are going to be severly limited in what we can do in that area.

Mr.Nice Guy

molloyjh wrote: »

Just because we are a small population doesn't mean our opinions count for more. And this crap about countries who haven't been in the EU as long as us doesn't wash. Its like saying that I'v been voting longer than my younger sisters so my vote is worth more than theirs. Come on......

I never said they should count for more. I want our opinions to count. We went through a lot to even get EU membership and you think it's OK for those who just joined to have more influence? Baffling.

cornbb wrote:

Er, I didn't ask why you voted. I asked what clear message you would like to send back to the EU, seeing as thats what the No campaigners said they wanted to do. I'm still not hearing an answer...

I gave you what message I was looking to send. If you choose not see my answer that's a different story.

seamus wrote:

No, they have no right to do it. There's no such thing as a "moral right". Are you thinking of "moral obligation"? The EU's moral obligation is to respect each's country's method of ratifying the treaty.

Um, who says there's no such thing as a moral right? I reiterate that they have a moral right to find out whether or not the people of Europe back the agenda they are heading in.

seamus wrote:

Go look up the meaning of the word "fair". "Fair" doesn't mean, "Giving us preferential treatment".

I know what 'fair' means. It means having our opinions matter. Why the condescending attitude, seamus?

seamus wrote:

The treaty doesn't set out any kind of EU army, nor does it require anyone to fund an EU army. Its sets out a means for *sovereign armies* to co-operate in times of crisis.

There is an obligation to help fund the army. It was mentioned on Prime Time the other night by a legal expert.

thelordofcheeese wrote:

NO. That's the worst thing i've ever heard and you should feel bad.
Doing that would set a terrible preseidence of the EU directly interfering in how member states ratify treaties.

I should feel bad for wanting people to have a referendum on an important issue? Believe it or not I don't.

thelordofcheese wrote:

Weren't you complaining about the lack of democracy a second ago?

Indeed. I want this country's democratic rights respected.

thelordofcheese wrote:

I can't tell you you're wrong here (as much as I feel you are) as it's purely subjective, but i have no issues with the military spending clause. We send our army on UN approved peacekeeping missions, i see nothing wrong with making sure we have them well equiped.

Our UN troops do a great service, something I'm sure we DO agree on, so I don't feel EU military operations are needed or justified.

raido9

menoscemo wrote: »

The clear message is go and make a treaty that people actually want not just politicians. If not, leave well alone.

The clear message is that the general public can't be trusted to inform themselves with the content of the treaty before voting on it. People would rather listen to misinformed scarmongers than reading the factual documentation given out by the referendum commision because its "too complicated".

There's a reason 26 / 27 member states didn't have a referendum.

molloyjh

JC 2K3 wrote: »

In democracy, a nation is a union of people, all of whom are considered equal and have equal voting power.

The EU is a union of nations, all of whom should be considered equal and have equal voting power, no matter how big or small they are.


What's purely domestic or not is hard to determine exactly.

For example, I would prefer if the EU did not interfere with energy or intellectual property policy, personally. I don't see these as having much relevence to the EU.

Your view on EU democracy is bizarre to say the least. You reckon that we, as a nation of 4 million, should have equal say to Germany, a nation of well over 80 million? Would you expect Germany to accept that? What about all the other countries with a larger population than us? Do you think they'd accept it? And would you be happy for us as a nation of 4m to have as much influence as Malta, a nation of 0.1m? I wouldn't be happy with that at all!

Mr.Nice Guy

molloyjh wrote: »

1. Moral right or not, it would not stand legally so it doesn't matter. And it would not legally stand in the member states themselves because they are soverign nations. You give out on one hand that we're being told what to do re Lisbon by the EU, and on the other hand you're saying they should override every countries constitution. Thats hypocrasy.

Legally it would be acceptable to put the issue to a referendum as it was done with the EU constitution. There is no hypocrisy here, just a desire to see democracy respected and not fascism.

molloyjh wrote:

2. In your first point you talk about moral right, and in your second you talk about getting us undue influence. Thats hardly moral at all is it? More hypocrasy.

You're getting more and more desperate here. I'm saying no such thing.

molloyjh wrote:

3. The military wording of the Treaty is that we improve our military relatiev to our ability to do so (or something very similar). It does not state how that should be done or in what kind of timeframe. Its left open on purpose because smaller nations like ourselves are going to be severly limited in what we can do in that area.

And what business has Brussels to tell us or any nation-state how to treat our military? Thank the Lord it was defeated eh?

jank

I voted No, because it is my democratic right to do so.
My reasons are my own and i have a right to keep them to myself

menoscemo

raido9 wrote: »

The clear message is that the general public can't be trusted to inform themselves with the content of the treaty before voting on it. People would rather listen to misinformed scarmongers than reading the factual documentation given out by the referendum commision because its "too complicated".

There's a reason 26 / 27 member states didn't have a referendum.

BullSh** I Informed myself and voted no, as did many others. And if what you say about others not getting a referendum is true, then are you in favour of dictatorship then?
People voted no because they do not want people like you telling them what is best for them. they prefer to make their own mind up on that.

molloyjh

menoscemo wrote: »

The clear message is go and make a treaty that people actually want not just politicians. If not, leave well alone.

But what does that mean. It's as meaningless as most of the Yes campaign was!!!!

jprender

It is amazing that some individuals have convinced themselves that the reason Ireland voted no is because the no-voters didnt understand.

I am astounded at this perception.

"how did u vote?"
"I voted no"
"Oh, you obviously didnt understand"

Sheeesh :rolleyes:

kaiser sauze

uptherebels wrote: »

no they didnt.The lisbon treaty is the eu constitution.

Have you any more inaccurate statements to spew out?

molloyjh

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I never said they should count for more. I want our opinions to count. We went through a lot to even get EU membership and you think it's OK for those who just joined to have more influence? Baffling.

Yes I have no problem with that. Just like I have no problem with an Irish citizen who is voting for the first time this year having an equal say to me. Its what democracy is all about. What you are talking about is nothing short of favouritism and utterly anti-democratic.

FrankGrimes

I find it surprising that so few No voters have actually answered what was a pretty simple question by the OP.

Forget why you voted no, what message do you want to send to the EU? Was your intention:

1. To give a message to our own government that you don't trust/support them.

2. To tell the EU that you are perfectly happy with the status quo and don't want anything to change.

3. To tell the EU that you're not happy with Ireland's involvement in the EU and want to reduce Ireland's involvement.

4. To tell the EU that you're not happy with Ireland's current involvement in the EU and want a different treaty that will address whatever specific concerns you may have and you would then be happy to back such a treaty to continue Ireland's involvement.

5. No message, you just heard some things from the No campaign that you didn't like the sound of and voted No on the basis of that but have no strong opinion on Europe beyond that.

6. None of the above - please clarify if so.

This is not intended to question or undermine anybody's decision, I'm just finding it hard to understand why people voted No. I fully respect peoples' right to vote No and also to not reply here, but the No campaigners have always said they support the EU just not this treaty, so I'm trying to understand in what way they support the EU and what could have been different about this treaty to address those needs.

As I've said elsewhere, my personal feeling is that a lot of No voters voted that way due to being misinformed or mislead on the contents of the treaty, but I'm sure that only applies to a portion of No voters, so I'd simply like to understand the motives of those No voters that were well informed.

Not sure how this can be construed as arrogance - it's just an attempt to better understand things, especially since no No campaigners said they were saying No just cos they don't like the idea of Ireland being involved in the EU, so in the absence of the above explanation, something is not adding up for me, so I'd appreciate some input from No voters to help me fill in the gaps.

Sparks

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'm probably going to regret this post :rolleyes:
I voted no, but I was in favour of about 90% of what was in the treaty.
I voted no because of how it was being done, not what it was. I didn't agree with what was in effect bringing in a constitution (which I would have voted for) though what amounted to (in my eyes) a back door.

Mr.Nice Guy

molloyjh wrote: »

Yes I have no problem with that. Just like I have no problem with an Irish citizen who is voting for the first time this year having an equal say to me. Its what democracy is all about. What you are talking about is nothing short of favouritism and utterly anti-democratic.

Untrue and a poor analogy. An Irish citizen voting for the first time this year doesn't have MORE OF A SAY than you do.

You seem content too that the likes of the UK, France, Italy and Germany have much more say than Ireland. What you are favouring mate is utterly anti-democratic. But you know that deep don I wager.

whitser

raido9 wrote: »

The clear message is that the general public can't be trusted to inform themselves with the content of the treaty before voting on it. People would rather listen to misinformed scarmongers than reading the factual documentation given out by the referendum commision because its "too complicated".

There's a reason 26 / 27 member states didn't have a referendum.

because they knew it would be rejected. your post is as arrogant as it gets. the only reason people of france,holland and ireland voted no was because they didnt understand it. the yes camp failed because it could convince the people of the benifts of signing away our soverignty.

molloyjh

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Legally it would be acceptable to put the issue to a referendum as it was done with the EU constitution. There is no hypocrisy here, just a desire to see democracy respected and not fascism.

You obviously don't really know what you are talking about...sorry, but thats blatantly obvious. The EU cannot interfere in these matters. The EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty are designed differently and so cannot be compared in terms of ratification.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

You're getting more and more desperate here. I'm saying no such thing.

You literally said you were not interest in fairness, that you wanted more influence for Ireland. In other words unfair influence for Ireland. Nothing desperate about my point, just simple fact.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

And what business has Brussels to tell us or any nation-state how to treat our military? Thank the Lord it was defeated eh?

The EU was not telling us how to treat our military. They just gave a vague "improve it" directive, which we would do anyway as we go given that we need to upgrade equipment etc.

seamus

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Um, who says there's no such thing as a moral right? I reiterate that they have a moral right to find out whether or not the people of Europe back the agenda they are heading in.

How do you define a "moral right"? Something which you're entitled to because it's correct? I say again, I think you're looking for "moral obligation". I know I'm being pedantic, but the word "right" has connotations.

I know what 'fair' means. It means having our opinions matter. Why the condescending attitude, seamus?

I'm not being condescending at all. You originally said that you wanted a fairer voting system, then you claimed that you wanted something which gave preference to Ireland. The two are mutually exclusive.

There is an obligation to help fund the army. It was mentioned on Prime Time the other night by a legal expert.

There is an obligation to fund our army, like we currently do. There was no notion of an EU army.