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

molloyjh

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

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.

The EU passes laws and legislation that are for the benefit of and impact all citizens of the EU. Therefore those citizens deserve to have their say in the EU. To say that the 0.1m people of Malta and the 4m people of Ireland and the 82m people of Germany should all have the same vote is absolutely ludicrous. I'd be very suprised if you found any support for the idea from anyone here at all. Its just madness......

kaiser sauze

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.

- I think I seen this elsewhere, but anyway; it is not the same, it is Coke with 2 drops of Pepsi.

- The treaty was renegotiated as a result of the NO vote in France and The Netherlands. See, the EU does listen.

The treaties are different, thanks for again accepting the fact, and then trying to deny it in the same post.

Yet more hypocrisy from you.

menoscemo

molloyjh wrote: »

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

It Means that in the name of real Democracy, as an absolute minimum, the French and Dutch people should have to vote to show their approval of any new treaty.
We have to re-examine where Europe is going and whether or not the actual European people want it to go there...

Gerry1995

cornbb wrote: »

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

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

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

In this quote you give the reason a lot of people voted no. In a democracy there should be no threat of dire consequences for casting your vote as you see fit. That's how Mugabe and others like him survive in power, there are always consequences for those who do not vote the way he wants them to do.

Mr.Nice Guy

molloyjh wrote: »

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.

Course I don't know what I'm talking about. We No voters are all the same, right? :rolleyes:

molloyjh wrote:

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.

Not so. More influence for Ireland does not equate to unfair influence for Ireland. You would have to be illiterate or bonkers to draw that conclusion.

molloyjh wrote:

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.

Oh it was a vague "improve it", was it? Funny I don't think the public agreed!

seamus wrote:

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.

Well with respect mate I think you are being pedantic! It was a choice of words that I see no problem with. I define it based on my own opinions as I guess most people do.

seamus wrote:

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.

I don't seek preference, just greater respect. Perhaps I could have worded it better. I know you think so.

molloyjh wrote:

The EU passes laws and legislation that are for the benefit of and impact all citizens of the EU. Therefore those citizens deserve to have their say in the EU. To say that the 0.1m people of Malta and the 4m people of Ireland and the 82m people of Germany should all have the same vote is absolutely ludicrous. I'd be very suprised if you found any support for the idea from anyone here at all. Its just madness......

What's mad about each nation-state needing to have their position respected? Isn't that the EU's own claim? That things must be for the benefit of everyone? This Treaty was not. What gives me the authority to say that? The fact the people via a democratic vote said no to the proposals. Those who argued against this Treaty have been given a mandate.

kaiser sauze wrote:

- I think I seen this elsewhere, but anyway; it is not the same, it is Coke with 2 drops of Pepsi.

It is Coke. Stop clinging to droplets for the love of God. :pac:

kaiser sauze wrote:

- The treaty was renegotiated as a result of the NO vote in France and The Netherlands. See, the EU does listen.

You ought to go to the humour forum with that one. A document that's 95,96, 98% the same according to various commentators is, in your mind, a renegotiation? Unbelievable!

kaiser sauze wrote:

The treaties are different, thanks for again accepting the fact, and then trying to deny it in the same post.

Yet more hypocrisy from you.

Calling me a hypocrite doesn't make it so. There is no hypocrisy, just common sense. They are the same treaties and in your heart you know it to be true. As I said earlier, putting a Pepsi label on a bottle of coke and adding two drops of Pepsi doesn't change a thing. Give it to someone to taste and they'll call it Coke! Give the people of Ireland a load of bullsh*t and we'll call you up on it.

Brilliant day for this nation.

molloyjh

menoscemo wrote: »

It Means that in the name of real Democracy, as an absolute minimum, the French and Dutch people should have to vote to show their approval of any new treaty.
We have to re-examine where Europe is going and whether or not the actual European people want it to go there...

Whether the French or Dutch people vote on this is not an EU issue, and it certainly isn't an Irish issue. Their constitution states what they must and must not vote on, and nothing and noone has the right to overrule that but the people. The only reason we voted yesterday was because of a man called Crotty, who stood up to be counted when we first joined the EEC as it was then. Noone, either here or anywhere else in Europe, can complain that the Treaty did not go for referenda elsewhere because the law in the other member states does not require it, and the people never demanded (like Crotty did) to change that. You cannot fault the EU or the Treaty for that. And I'm sick of hearing people trying to.

molloyjh

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Course I don't know what I'm talking about. We No voters are all the same, right? :rolleyes:

Not so. More influence for Ireland does not equate to unfair influence for Ireland. You would have to be illiterate or bonkers to draw that conclusion.

Oh it was a vague "improve it", was it? Funny I don't think the public agreed!

Well with respect mate I think you are being pedantic! It was a choice of words that I see no problem with. I define it based on my own opinions as I guess most people do.

I don't seek preference, just greater respect. Perhaps I could have worded it better. I know you think so.

What's mad about each nation-state needing to have their position respected? Isn't that the EU's own claim? That things must be for the benefit of everyone? This Treaty was not. What gives me the authority to say that? The fact the people via a democratic vote said no to the proposals. Those who argued against this Treaty have been given a mandate.

It is Coke. Stop clinging to droplets for the love of God. :pac:

You ought to go to the humour forum with that one. A document that's 95,96, 98% the same according to various commentators is, in your mind, a renegotiation? Unbelievable!

Calling me a hypocrite doesn't make it so. There is no hypocrisy, just common sense. They are the same treaties and in your heart you know it to be true. As I said earlier, putting a Pepsi label on a bottle of coke and adding two drops of Pepsi doesn't change a thing. Give it to someone to taste and they'll call it Coke! Give the people of Ireland a load of bullsh*t and we'll call you up on it.

Brilliant day for this nation.

I see there's little point in going into this any further. At the end of the day I have made, and will not make, any sweeping claims about anybody. There are a lot of No voters out there who do know what they are talking about. You, unfortunately, as an individual obviously do not. The most obvious point being that there has been only 1 treaty, not 2. The first attempt at change was a constitution. The 2 are very, very different. You basically want 1 Irish persons voice to be equal to that of 20+ German people, there's nothing fair in that anywhere and there's no argument you can make that can change that. I'm sorry but you're not going to get any support from anyone here, Yes or No......

menoscemo

molloyjh wrote: »

Whether the French or Dutch people vote on this is not an EU issue, and it certainly isn't an Irish issue.

It is an EU Issue and since we are part of the EU, then it is also an Irish Issue

molloyjh wrote: »

Their constitution states what they must and must not vote on, and nothing and noone has the right to overrule that but the people. The only reason we voted yesterday was because of a man called Crotty, who stood up to be counted when we first joined the EEC as it was then. Noone, either here or anywhere else in Europe, can complain that the Treaty did not go for referenda elsewhere because the law in the other member states does not require it, and the people never demanded (like Crotty did) to change that. You cannot fault the EU or the Treaty for that. And I'm sick of hearing people trying to.

We fooled ourselves for years (I know I did) thinking that we should go along with everything the EU does because everyone else in Europe likes it and so should we. (Exception here of the UK maybe as it was obvious that their people are not in favour of political union)

The French and Dutch Votes came as a shock to us (as did Nice 1 to them) and made us all wake up to reality. All 3 are traditionally pro-european countries.
I am not comfortable anymore in pushing for further european integration knowing now that there are many people out there being forced into something they do not want.

the hoff

No voters may again claim that my statement amounts to arrogance but the simple facts of it are that there was a significant deployment of scare-mongering by the No side. One need just look at the posters and leaflets dispersed across the country to confirm this. I found the constant claims that the Treaty would affect our neutrality and our tax system appalling and scurrilous, a simple read of the referendum commission's information booklet on the lisbon treaty would have revealed, and I quote, "Certain decisions will continue to be made unanimously- they include decisions on defence and taxation."

I am well aware of the fact that many on this forum voted against the treaty for other reasons and were well informed as to its content, but unfortunately such people do not represent the majority of the electorate who were not well informed (whether they voted Yes or No) and who based their decision very much on buzz words and phrases that caught the ear and eye. Unfortunately the sweeping and inaccurate statements of the No side seemed to catch the eye and ear that bit better

Mr.Nice Guy

molloyjh wrote: »

I see there's little point in going into this any further. At the end of the day I have made, and will not make, any sweeping claims about anybody. There are a lot of No voters out there who do know what they are talking about. You, unfortunately, as an individual obviously do not. The most obvious point being that there has been only 1 treaty, not 2. The first attempt at change was a constitution. The 2 are very, very different. You basically want 1 Irish persons voice to be equal to that of 20+ German people, there's nothing fair in that anywhere and there's no argument you can make that can change that. I'm sorry but you're not going to get any support from anyone here, Yes or No......

If you're going to give me 'Euro speak' then yes there is little point in proceeding further. If you were honest, you'd acknowledge the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty are essentially the same thing. I think you are missing the reasons why the people rejected the Treaty but I hope you will reflect on them in the coming days and at a less emotive time.

As for support, I seem to have gotten the support from my compatriots at the polls which is all I wanted. Cheers.

molloyjh

menoscemo wrote: »

It is an EU Issue and since we are part of the EU, then it is also an Irish Issue

Look you're obviously not goingt o believe me or anyone else that tells you this, so maybe you should go off and read it for yourself. Ratification of EU policies is a matter of domestic law only and cannot be dictated in any way by anyone other than the particular member states people.

the hoff

molloyjh wrote: »

I see there's little point in going into this any further. At the end of the day I have made, and will not make, any sweeping claims about anybody. There are a lot of No voters out there who do know what they are talking about. You, unfortunately, as an individual obviously do not. The most obvious point being that there has been only 1 treaty, not 2. The first attempt at change was a constitution. The 2 are very, very different. You basically want 1 Irish persons voice to be equal to that of 20+ German people, there's nothing fair in that anywhere and there's no argument you can make that can change that. I'm sorry but you're not going to get any support from anyone here, Yes or No......

+1
Here Here

molloyjh

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

If you're going to give me 'Euro speak' then yes there is little point in proceeding further. If you were honest, you'd acknowledge the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty are essentially the same thing. I think you are missing the reasons why the people rejected the Treaty but I hope you will reflect on them in the coming days and at a less emotive time.

As for support, I seem to have gotten the support from my compatriots at the polls which is all I wanted. Cheers.

The legislation within them may be the same thing that doesn't mean a treaty = a constitution. The words constitution and treaty are hardly EU speak for either Chr!sts sake! The requirements for ratification are legally different for both. I suggest you do some research on the topic before replying as you're out of your depth. Apologies for seeming to be harsh, but thats just a fact.

Mr.Nice Guy

molloyjh wrote: »

The legislation within them may be the same thing that doesn't mean a treaty = a constitution. The words constitution and treaty are hardly EU speak for either Chr!sts sake! The requirements for ratification are legally different for both. I suggest you do some research on the topic before replying as you're out of your depth. Apologies for seeming to be harsh, but thats just a fact.

No apology necessary because I know you are in denial and you are hurting right now.

The reality is that the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty are essentially the same as neutral observers have even confirmed and changing the name and making a few tweaks doesn't change that fact.

seamus

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

The reality is that the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty are essentially the same as neutral observers have even confirmed and changing the name and making a few tweaks doesn't change that fact.

Grand so. Let's hope FF just decide that we no longer need the Treaty of the Republic of Ireland anymore and pull out of it.

raido9

whitser wrote: »

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.

Again cop out answer. The booklet by the referendum commision is as simple as a complicated document like the lisbon treaty is going to get. Its clear a large portion of the population (on both sides) didn't read this as they are still spuoting out lies that are clearly not true to anyone that has done 5 minutes research into the treaty.

Its ridiculous how many people who didn't inform themselves/ didn't understand what the treaty actually was about and still went on to vote.

oscarBravo

jprender wrote: »

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

I think it's more a question of:

"How did you vote?"
"I voted no."
"Why?"
"I didn't understand it."

menoscemo

molloyjh wrote: »

Look you're obviously not goingt o believe me or anyone else that tells you this, so maybe you should go off and read it for yourself. Ratification of EU policies is a matter of domestic law only and cannot be dictated in any way by anyone other than the particular member states people.

I understand that completely, I am a Graduate of European Studies. I worked as a stagiere in the European Commisssion for a year in Brussels.
I am just recently uncomfortable of being a member of a club in which individual members pay no regard to the wishes of their own people e.g. Sarkzoy admitting he was having no referendum in France because he knew the people would just say no......I have to ask myself should we be a part of such a club? or should we send a message saying I am not happy about that? I did the latter.

fransgone

I voted NO yesterday and in fact I spent considerable time considering my vote in the last number of weeks. I searched hard for reasons to vote Yes to the treaty especially considering who was representing the 'NO' side. However I felt both sides were certainly guilty of scare-mongering and whitewashing the facts.

While I definitely agree that the EU needs some reform, and that we should remain an integral part of Europe, the main reason why I voted No was ultimately the enormous amount of text in the treaty relating to security policy and 'common defence'. Although Ireland retains a veto against these matters, it appears that this treaty aims to push the EU towards becoming a superpower rather than an economic union between member states. This is not something we should be supporting, and we shouldn't be expected to stand on the sideline turning a blind eye to what we don't approve of, waving our 'neutrality' flag.

Such emphasis on common defence policy can hardly be disguised as the reform of EU governing bodies, yet some people seem to have either not read any of the treaty or were prepared to overlook the troubling reality of where this treaty aims to direct the future of the EU.

kaiser sauze

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

It is Coke. Stop clinging to droplets for the love of God. :pac:



You ought to go to the humour forum with that one. A document that's 95,96, 98% the same according to various commentators is, in your mind, a renegotiation? Unbelievable!



Calling me a hypocrite doesn't make it so. There is no hypocrisy, just common sense. They are the same treaties and in your heart you know it to be true. As I said earlier, putting a Pepsi label on a bottle of coke and adding two drops of Pepsi doesn't change a thing. Give it to someone to taste and they'll call it Coke! Give the people of Ireland a load of bullsh*t and we'll call you up on it.

Brilliant day for this nation.

Sorry, troll, I'm off to play with the people who know what they are talking about.

ampjohnny

menoscemo wrote: »

I understand that completely, I am a Graduate of European Studies. I worked as a stagiere in the European Commisssion for a year in Brussels.
I am just recently uncomfortable of being a member of a club in which individual members pay no regard to the wishes of their own people e.g. Sarkzoy admitting he was having no referendum in France because he knew the people would just say no......I have to ask myself should we be a part of such a club? or should we send a message saying I am not happy about that? I did the latter.

+1

And that, (without the graduate degree or work experience part) is exactly how i feel about it.

Nicely put.

whitser

raido9 wrote: »

Again cop out answer. The booklet by the referendum commision is as simple as a complicated document like the lisbon treaty is going to get. Its clear a large portion of the population (on both sides) didn't read this as they are still spuoting out lies that are clearly not true to anyone that has done 5 minutes research into the treaty.

Its ridiculous how many people who didn't inform themselves/ didn't understand what the treaty actually was about and still went on to vote.

sorry i didnt make myself clear,i ment it was arrogance that the yes side say people voted no because they didnt understand the treaty.

In/Casino/Out

Arrogant but true and openly admitted by many no voters.

whitser

raido9 wrote: »

Again cop out answer. The booklet by the referendum commision is as simple as a complicated document like the lisbon treaty is going to get. Its clear a large portion of the population (on both sides) didn't read this as they are still spuoting out lies that are clearly not true to anyone that has done 5 minutes research into the treaty.

Its ridiculous how many people who didn't inform themselves/ didn't understand what the treaty actually was about and still went on to vote.

also people have the right to vote yes or no for any reason they want. be it a protest vote to wipe the smirk off berties face or because they dont like they direction the eu is going or even because they didnt understand the treaty. and wether someone can understand the treaty or not they have a right to vote.

Mr.Nice Guy

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Sorry, troll, I'm off to play with the people who know what they are talking about.

Nice! No wonder you couldn't persuade the people with that attitude!

The sun is shining and the EU has been forced to listen to the rights of EU citizens. It is a marvellous day.

whitser

In/Casino/Out wrote: »

Arrogant but true and openly admitted by many no voters.

if they didnt understand it then why should they vote for it. cowon himself didnt read it. most people had a general understanding of it and rejected it. i think people just dont like the direction the eu is going and they've voted with their feet,as the man says.

Sparks

oscarBravo wrote: »

I think it's more a question of:

"How did you vote?"
"I voted no."
"Why?"
"I didn't understand it."

Obviously I can't speak for anyone bar myself, but no, the original was closer to what I've encountered.

raido9

whitser wrote: »

also people have the right to vote yes or no for any reason they want. be it a protest vote to wipe the smirk off berties face or because they dont like they direction the eu is going or even because they didnt understand the treaty. and wether someone can understand the treaty or not they have a right to vote.

I know, crazy system isn't it.

carveone

whitser wrote: »

if they didnt understand it then why should they vote for it.

Or indeed against it. Don't like carrots. Never seen a carrot, never tasted it. Think it's a fruit of some sort. Someone said they might be bad for you. Don't like carrots.

cowon himself didnt read it.

I don't believe Bertie would ever have said something like this. People know full well Cowan has a shop load of advisors to summarise and answer any question or concern he might have. The public interpreted the statement as ignorance of the treaty which was highly detrimental.

most people had a general understanding of it and rejected it.

If that's true then I guess I don't have a problem with it...

force eleven

I want close economic ties, ease of movement between countries and good diplomatic relations with our European neighbours. I did not want a diminution of our voting strength,interference with our judicial laws, potential interference with our neutrality and potential interference in our economic policies. This European Project is an unwieldy and out of control mammoth and the line has to be drawn somewhere. We need to get back to the original EEC ideal - and keep it at that.