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

cornbb

turgon wrote: »

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

This thread isn't about your reasons, its asking what collective message we were trying to send to the EU by voting no. But its a rhetorical question, of course...

murphaph

I was sending the message that I believe democracy is slowly being eroded in Europe and Manuel Barroso confirmed my beliefs before we had even officially given our decision! He at least, has no intention of respecting our decision and I think even ardent YES people will have to agree that it bodes very badly for a supposed democratic organisation when talk of the imortance ratification in the other 26 states is already coming to the fore.

I only hope just one of the national parliaments has the guts to reject it too.

turgon

cornbb wrote: »

This thread isn't about your reasons, its asking what collective message we were trying to send to the EU by voting no. But its a rhetorical question, of course...

Yes, and I listed them and no one said anythin. Exactly the attitude of the Yes side. Once someone gives a reason to vote No they just ignore it.

Message I want to send to EUROPE

I want no EU army. I want no common defense. Why do so many every man made organizations find some reason to bring guns into the issue?

I want a real shakeup of democracy in Europe, not like some half arced attempts in Lisbon (such as the Citizens Initiative) designed only for us to say yes. Real movement towards a full democracy.

Further to this I want the accountability of the EU UP UP UP.

I want the snaky dealings to go. By this I mean the way in which French and Dutch voters said No to constitution - that we thought would be the end of it, but now they have ratified 90% of it. The excuse that ratification is not an EU issue just those not float. The way in which individual nations deal with European issues reflects on the EU as a whole.

Included in the above is the structure of the Lisbon Treaty - specifically designed to make it hard to understand. What was that quote again - "people will be made to adopt the measures thy would not agree to normally"??

cornbb

Declan Ganley wrote:

The Irish people have rejected the Lisbon Treaty...it is a great day for Irish democracy...This is democracy in action . . . and Europe needs to listen to the voice of the people

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0613/breaking1.htm

More bluster and bullsh*t from Ganley. Not a hint on why exactly this is good for democracy (800,000 people scuppering plans for 500 million europeans??) or what "the voice of the people" is actually trying to say. He will laugh himself to sleep tonight :mad:

menoscemo

turgon wrote: »

Yes, and I listed them and no one said anythin. Exactly the attitude of the Yes side. Once someone gives a reason to vote No they just ignore it.

Message I want to send to EUROPE

I want no EU army. I want no common defense. Why do so many every man made organizations find some reason to bring guns into the issue?

I want a real shakeup of democracy in Europe, not like some half arced attempts in Lisbon (such as the Citizens Initiative) designed only for us to say yes. Real movement towards a full democracy.

Further to this I want the accountability of the EU UP UP UP.

I want the snaky dealings to go. By this I mean the way in which French and Dutch voters said No to constitution - that we thought would be the end of it, but now they have ratified 90% of it. The excuse that ratification is not an EU issue just those not float. The way in which individual nations deal with European issues reflects on the EU as a whole.

Included in the above is the structure of the Lisbon Treaty - specifically designed to make it hard to understand. What was that quote again - "people will be made to adopt the measures thy would not agree to normally"??

I have offered some of the same messages in this thread but was also ignored and then asked to give a message again.

VoidStarNull

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's convenient to dismiss it that way, sure.

But it misses the fundamental point: exactly what the hell are we supposed to do now?

Some people are trying to push the bizarre idea that somehow this "no" vote has given a mandate to the government to go and get something. It has done nothing of the sort. This thread illustrates pretty clearly that there is no coherent reason for an objection to Lisbon; nothing whatsoever that the government can take back to the EU and say "look lads, here's the problem."

To be honest I think Turgon's post above does articulate something that probably affected many NO voters. The lack of transparency and public involvement in the way the treaty was drawn up (and mischeivous quotes from people like Giscard D'Estaing) has led people to be suspicious that someone was trying to pull a fast one.

Lack of communication leads to paranoia. That's a fact in all walks of life.
It's something that could potentially be fixed, although it will be hard. The natural instinct of governments (and anyone else) is not to conduct negotiations in public.

turgon

cornbb wrote: »

800,000 people scuppering plans for 500 million europeans??:

Of course, especially because 500 million people did say Yes. Oh wait they didn't.

Now bring on the counter argument of representative democracy. When ye all know that less that 1.6 million people actually voted about the treaty, free of political pressure (such as those in Government - "vote Yes or your out of Fianna Fail"), and a majority voted no. Claiming that 500 million people have had their plans destroyed would give the impression that a bit of direct democracy was used on the continent. Luckily for me, I know better.

Europe hates direct democracy, its just far too democratic for them.

Sparks

cornbb wrote: »

Its a question of vital national importance.

No, it's not. "Where do we go from here" is decidedly an important question, but it's one for the entire EU, not just those who voted no in Ireland yesterday. And you belittle both the question and those who did not vote no in Ireland yesterday when you put it the way you've put it.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's convenient to dismiss it that way, sure.

It's not dismissing the fundamental point; it's saying if you want to ask that question, do so in a less abusive manner.

But it misses the fundamental point: exactly what the hell are we supposed to do now?

Which is not the question asked by the OP.

turgon wrote: »

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

Ditto, even though if you wanted to interpret my one bit of information as a "message", that post would be it.

cornbb wrote: »

This thread isn't about your reasons, its asking what collective message we were trying to send to the EU by voting no. But its a rhetorical question, of course...

And an abusive one.

cornbb

menoscemo wrote: »

I have offered some of the same messages in this thread but was also ignored and then asked to give a message again.

You're not getting the point of the thread. I'm wondering what coherent, collective message we can deliver to the other European leaders next week. Plenty of you have come out with reasons for voting no. Some of them have been reasonable, some of them have been proven to be invalid, and some of them have been downright outrageous.

I'm asking what we, as the only nation to have rejected the Lisbon treaty, can now offer as a coherent and collective explanation for having done so?

The answer is None. The No campaigners can now wash their hands of the whole affair and leave the government and the nation to pick up the pieces of what most EU governments and international media organisations have by now called a "crisis".

I'm depressed and I'm going to the pub now. Have a good weekend, everyone.

VoidStarNull

turgon wrote: »

Europe hates direct democracy, its just far too democratic for them.

Not at all. Europe is caught between trying to remain an inter-governmental body (like the UN) and avoid being a superstate (like the US), and trying to provide more democracy at EU level.

In a body like the UN, issues are settled by inter-governmental negotiation. That's the way most stuff is done in the EU.

In a superstate like the US, issues are ultimately settled by direct democracy. Some stuff is done like this in the EU (via the EU Parliament).

If you make the EU more democratic by e.g. giving much more power to the EU Parliament, then the EU Parliament could by-pass the national governments and implement EU polcies by direct appeal to the public. The EU would then become a superstate, in which the national governments become increasingly irrelevant.

Trying to square this circle is the compromise that has to be made when considering a treaty like the Lisbon treaty. If you allow more direct democracy at EU level, people will say it's a superstate. If you maintain it as an intergovernmental body, then people will complain that it's not democratic enough....

Sparks

cornbb wrote: »

I'm asking what we, as the only nation to have rejected the Lisbon treaty, can now offer as a coherent and collective explanation for having done so?

Excuse me for missing this bit, but where does it say we have to offer any explanation at all? Would we have been required to produce one had we voted yes?

cornbb

Sparks wrote: »

No, it's not. "Where do we go from here" is decidedly an important question, but it's one for the entire EU, not just those who voted no in Ireland yesterday. And you belittle both the question and those who did not vote no in Ireland yesterday when you put it the way you've put it.

"Where do we go from here" is sidestepping our responsibility. We can't decide where to go until we have explained why we have rejected where we were supposed to go. You are washing your hands and telling the EU to go back to the drawing board without a coherent argument. That is wrong. The ball is in our court.

And an abusive one.

I haven't asked an abusive question, I've asked a very difficult question which realistically demands an answer.

cornbb

Sparks wrote: »

Excuse me for missing this bit, but where does it say we have to offer any explanation at all? Would we have been required to produce one had we voted yes?

Well, what's the alternative? If the Lisbon treaty wasn't good enough, surely we should be giving the EU some sort of feedback as to why we were unhappy? Or do we tell offer no feedback and tell European leaders to blindly "keep trying" and keep coming back with treaty after treaty until we get one we are happy with?

Sparks

cornbb wrote: »

"Where do we go from here" is sidestepping our responsibility.

No, it is not, because it is not solely our responsibility. This isn't a case of "whoops, we broke something, now we're obligated to fix it". This is a case of "this was broken already, we just noticed it".

I haven't asked an abusive question, I've asked a very difficult question which realistically demands an answer.

You've phrased it in an abusive way subconsciously in that case.

turgon

cornbb wrote: »

You're not getting the point of the thread. I'm wondering what coherent, collective message we can deliver to the other European leaders next week. Plenty of you have come out with reasons for voting no. Some of them have been reasonable, some of them have been proven to be invalid, and some of them have been downright outrageous.

I'm asking what we, as the only nation to have rejected the Lisbon treaty, can now offer as a coherent and collective explanation for having done so?

Well, in one eloquent post you have just re-stated your question, and confirmed that you are choosing to ignore our replies. You have not considered what we have said. You have failed to acknowledge the validity of what I said. In a sense you are admitting we are right. However you now state that we can send no message. This is because you started the topic hoping your question would be met with confounded no-sider idiots, but once realizing your question actually had an answer of merit, you stated that that question had no answer and dismissed it.

If you are going to continue your selective hearing, ie "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest", then I have no intention of engaging in discussion with you.

But if there is anyone willing to discuss this properly, and not simply dismiss opinions that you do not agree with, then I invite you to comment on my posts and the post of other No-siders.

Dotsie~tmp

O'Morris wrote: »

The message I hoped we sent to the EU is that we don't want to sacrifice any more of our independence and we don't want the EU to turn into a superstate.

Thus far and no further

You have saved me the bother. ^ What he said ^

oscarBravo

Sparks wrote: »

No, it is not, because it is not solely our responsibility. This isn't a case of "whoops, we broke something, now we're obligated to fix it". This is a case of "this was broken already, we just noticed it".

I disagree with your analogy, but to extend it:

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

Hitman Actual

Sparks wrote: »

Excuse me for missing this bit, but where does it say we have to offer any explanation at all? Would we have been required to produce one had we voted yes?

What??? Of course we have to offer an explanation for the No vote. Do we let the EU guess what way we want to proceed with them? And why would we have to offer an explanation for a Yes vote? A Yes vote is self-explanatory, a No vote most certainly is not.

decoder

turgon wrote: »

Decoder seems to be implying that we should take whatever Europe throws at us based on the success of the economy.

Irish delegates were just as much involved in the creation of this treaty as any other from Europe, notably Dermot Ahern, a signatoire on the treaty.

I think we should support a constitution that clarifies human rights and gives us the financial security to progress in the future. One that gives us the opportunity to opt out of aspects to which we don't agree.

turgon

oscarBravo wrote: »

EU: "Oh? How do we fix it?"

Get rid of common defense.

Introduce some democracy worth talking about.

Add some accountability. I dont think its a lot to ask.


And as an afterthought: maybe let all the EU engage in direct democracy??

Sparks

oscarBravo wrote: »

I disagree with your analogy, but to extend it:
EU: "What happened?"
Ireland: "Lisbon was broken."
EU: "Oh? How do we fix it?"
Ireland: <stoney silence>

It was the lack of the first person plural that was the offensive part of the original post, so it's good to see it included here.

Taken in that spirit, the answer's simple - do what you did after the EU constitution failed, but this time don't try to have the result ratified - actively seek referenda so that people actually feel they have some form of say in things.

Sparks

lenny_leonard wrote: »

What??? Of course we have to offer an explanation for the No vote.

I'm sorry lenny, I'm a little slow sometimes. Where did it say that?

oscarBravo

turgon wrote: »

Get rid of common defense.

This modifies the treaty, which requires that it be ratified again - but it won't, by all the countries who want a common defence.

This is why we have opt-outs for the bits that don't suit us.

Introduce some democracy worth talking about.

With respect, that's just a soundbite: you can't add a "democracy worth talking about" clause to an international treaty.

Add some accountability. I dont think its a lot to ask.

Ditto.

And as an afterthought: maybe let all the EU engage in direct democracy??

Any EU member state that wants to can explore options for direct democracy. The Lisbon treaty introduced a concession to the idea, in the form of a Citizens' Initiative.

monroe

If I hear the phrase 'uncharted terriotory' once more from a No politician, I think I may well cry........

The message isn't complicated, its no, we do not agree with the treaty as presented to us. We expect you to respect that message. Feel free to come again with another...God bless Europe...

Hitman Actual

turgon wrote: »

Well, in one eloquent post you have just re-stated your question, and confirmed that you are choosing to ignore our replies. You have not considered what we have said. You have failed to acknowledge the validity of what I said. In a sense you are admitting we are right. However you now state that we can send no message. This is because you started the topic hoping your question would be met with confounded no-sider idiots, but once realizing your question actually had an answer of merit, you stated that that question had no answer and dismissed it.

If you are going to continue your selective hearing, ie "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest", then I have no intention of engaging in discussion with you.

But if there is anyone willing to discuss this properly, and not simply dismiss opinions that you do not agree with, then I invite you to comment on my posts and the post of other No-siders.

Fair enough, turgon, but in your case it seems like you want a radical change of the EU. If you could say that this was the case for a lot of No voters, then it would offer something of an explanation. (I doubt much would be done, but it would offer something of a reason none the less). But I doubt that the majority of No voters want a radical reformation of the union.

But what is Brian Cowan supposed to say where people voted no because of the commissioner issue, or abortion, or conscription, or all those other individual mis-led reasons. As far as the negotiators and the EU were concerned, these issues were covered in Lisbon.

oscarBravo

Sparks wrote: »

Taken in that spirit, the answer's simple - do what you did after the EU constitution failed, but this time don't try to have the result ratified - actively seek referenda so that people actually feel they have some form of say in things.

It's a simple answer, in that it doesn't take long to write it out, but is it simple in practice?

Suppose it's re-negotiated, and 22 member states ratify through referenda. Then one rejects it.

So it's re-negotiated again. This time the fourth member state to be asked rejects it because of an unpopular national government.

So it's re-negotiated again. The first three countries, pissed off at having their "yes" answer repeatedly overturned by bloody foreigners, vote "no" in protest.

So it's re-negotiated again...

Am I the only one who sees the problem?

BMH

turgon wrote: »

And as an afterthought: maybe let all the EU engage in direct democracy??

I hope you're not suggesting that the EU force member states into holding referenda, a clear encroachment on national sovereignty?

turgon

oscarBravo wrote: »

This modifies the treaty, which requires that it be ratified again - but it won't, by all the countries who want a common defence.

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

With respect, that's just a soundbite: you can't add a "democracy worth talking about" clause to an international treaty.

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

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

Hitman Actual

Sparks wrote: »

I'm sorry lenny, I'm a little slow sometimes. Where did it say that?

Okay, you're confusing me now. We voted No, the EU will want to know why. Surely that's obvious.

For example, in Nice I, the general reason for rejection was concerns over neutrality, iirc. So we went back with this reason to the negotiating table, got clarification for the Irish people on the issue, and ended up with the re-drafted Nice II. Which passed.

So what do we tell the EU this time?

menoscemo

cornbb wrote: »

You're not getting the point of the thread. I'm wondering what coherent, collective message we can deliver to the other European leaders next week. Plenty of you have come out with reasons for voting no. Some of them have been reasonable, some of them have been proven to be invalid, and some of them have been downright outrageous.

I'm asking what we, as the only nation to have rejected the Lisbon treaty, can now offer as a coherent and collective explanation for having done so?

The answer is None. The No campaigners can now wash their hands of the whole affair and leave the government and the nation to pick up the pieces of what most EU governments and international media organisations have by now called a "crisis".

I'm depressed and I'm going to the pub now. Have a good weekend, everyone.

We have given our reasons. It is quite simple to take those reasons and tell the other European leaders, the Irsh people rejected this treaty becuase of X Y and Z. This would be our message to said leaders. They would have to absorb this information and decide where to go next.
What is so complicated about this?