The people of Ireland have spoken.

johnnyq

nesf wrote: »

I disagree to an extent. We don't have a God given right to be at the heart of the EU. If we as a nation resist the kind of democratic integration that the other member states Governmentswant, they do have a right to go ahead without us. Do they?It'll be painful politically for them to do, and I strongly doubt it's the the preferred option, but we conversely can't just hold the whole lot of them back either. Anyone voting No and thinking it was a vote for the status quo was deluding themselves. There have been several years of momentum built up painstakingly towards reform, they ain't just going to drop the whole idea because one tiny member says No.

Whether reform will be "reformed" and another offer made or whether we'll see a move to a "two track Europe" no one can say yet.

We rejected a certainty, I think we all agree on that.

But it wasn't imo (and shared by the majority) a good certainty.

Will Europe play by their own rules and accept that the vision presented was not a good one? That is the question.

turgon

Helix wrote: »

and what they said was "i dont understand this and im not bothered finding out about it, so im going to vote no instead"

You have just spoken and displayed a very ignorant opinion.

nesf

johnnyq wrote: »

We rejected a certainty, I think we all agree on that.

But it wasn't imo (and shared by the majority) a good certainty.

I'd disagree with you there...

johnnyq wrote: »

Will Europe play by their own rules and accept that the vision presented was not a good one? That is the question.

The more accurate question would be should, not will. It'll be an important test of how the EU wants to operate. I'm unsure, if it was a different country that did this and we were one of the other 26, I would lean to a "you're either in or out, make up your minds" offer to that country. I know you wouldn't agree with me on this but a lot of people would, especially other Europeans, and it's definitely a possibility that it'll happen. We don't have the pull or the importance that France, or even Holland, has. They don't have to come back to us with another offer strictly. If the Irish Government can't see a quick and easy fix, like the neutrality clause with Nice, I'm not sure what's going to happen.

We might want to stay put in the "old EU" but the rest of the EU mightn't. Where does that leave us?

spoonbadger

That is about the worst political video i've ever seen (right up there with H. clinton's "phone in the white house" commercial).If anything, that amateurish effort would make me less likely to vote no.

I cant believe the no vote won over. We've just completely kicked ourselves in the arse. A few months from now,when the EU comes to a decision on this, 54% of us are going to have some serious regrets.

I can understand if you *read the leaflet*, did your own research and came to your own informed decision on this. If you genuinely thought that a no vote was the way to go then well done!.But the people who voted no because they were unsure, or because "we'll get another chance", or who reasoned that Europe would ignore our vote anyway are idiots. *Fact*.

If you dont know, find out or shut-up.

Why the f*ck would they bring up the same referendum twice.

And if europe didnt care how you voted,then you vote at all?

/rant.

FrankGrimes

Helix wrote: »

and what they said was "i dont understand this and im not bothered finding out about it, so im going to vote no instead"

I don't think it's fair to say that this is what the people of Ireland have said, but I do think that any objective assessment can only conclude that a very significant portion of voters did not take the necessary actions to inform themselves on the meaning of this referendum and voted No as a result.

sprinkles

I'd like to know how many voted no because they did not know what the treaty was about. I reckon that those who actually had read up on the treaty (not read the treaty itself - legal mumbo jumbo) we would see the yes vote come out on top - pure speculation of course but that's the beauty of opinion . I heard some ridiculous reasons for wanted to vote no during the week, including the above I also heard someone say they were voting no to show their disapproval at FF. That's not what we were voting on!!!!

I honestly don't think the result was a true representation of Irelands views on the treaty given the rather poor reasons I was given for some voting "no", and if it was it just shows the ignorance and pettiness of some of the Irish people. If you are going to vote either way make sure it's an informed decision, it's your duty!!!

That said the campaign for the no vote was far more "in your face" and got it's message across to the punter clearly and effectively and has to be commended for that - Cowen take note! The "Yes" campaign was very poor and stagnant when faced with the surge in support for the "no".

On a side note, some of the labour cllrs in south dublin had their posters up and I actually had to stop and look to see where it said "yes" on it anywhere (top right in small red writing). It seemed they were more intent on getting their face and name known than putting across their choice.

Before anyone asks, I voted yes;)

All in all the whole thing was handled very badly from both sides of the campaign and left the vast majority of people confused over the basic issues of the treaty.

Europe, it's you roll of the dice....

FruitLover

turgon wrote: »

You have just spoken and displayed a very ignorant opinion.

If you genuinely believe that to be an ignorant opinion, then you're out of touch with reality - I saw several people on these very forums say that the reason they voted 'No' was because they didn't understand the treaty, and I would consider the Boards crowd more clued-in than the average punter. I dread to think how many of the great unwashed voted 'No' for the same reason.

spoonbadger wrote: »

Why the f*ck would they bring up the same referendum twice.

Why not? It might be Nice

turgon

sprinkles wrote: »

I honestly don't think the result was a true representation of Irelands views on the treaty given the rather poor reasons I was given for some voting "no", and if it was it just shows the ignorance and pettiness of some of the Irish people. If you are going to vote either way make sure it's an informed decision, it's your duty!!!

How many of the YES side didn't read up on the treaty, but just took the main political partys' word for it? My grandmother for one.

I did vote No, and it was an informed decision.

turgon

FruitLover wrote: »

If you genuinely believe that to be an ignorant opinion, then you're out of touch with reality - I saw several people on these very forums say that the reason they voted 'No' was because they didn't understand the treaty, and I would consider the Boards crowd more clued-in than the average punter. I dread to think how many of the great unwashed voted 'No' for the same reason.

FruitLover, he said everyone voted no cause they didn't know what was in it. That is an ignorant opinion, at least in my opinion.

Daftendirekt

What people need to bear in mind, is that we were voting on whether or not our constitution would be changed to allow the treaty to be ratified; this isn't exactly the same as voting on whether or not the treaty would be ratified. Evidently, the people have spoken, and the Irish Constitution won't be changed to allow Lisbon to be ratified - this doesn't, however, mean it has to be scrapped altogether. The other member states are perfectly entitled to find another way of ratifying it, that doesn't involve us changing our constitution.

I find it strange that some people who voted No because of the lack of referenda in other member states expect the treaty to be thrown out altogether: this would indicate a severe democratic deficit in the EU. This is something most of the member states want, and it's naive at best and willfully ignorant at worst to suppose that they won't press on without us.

Anyway, a bad day for Ireland overall, and I'm a little anxious about what's going to happen next. Probably one of the worst decisions ever made by Irish voters.

sprinkles

turgon wrote: »

How many of the YES side didn't read up on the treaty, but just took the main political partys' word for it? My grandmother for one.

I did vote No, and it was an informed decision.

Those that voted yes based on their trusted political parties (and democratically elected representatives) behest imo is better than voting no because they know nothing about the treaty...

And fair play to you. If you read my post I said I only had an issue with those that did not make an informed decision. It's your right to vote no if you choose to. But it's your duty to ensure you know the consequences of your vote.

Helix

turgon wrote: »

FruitLover, he said everyone voted no cause they didn't know what was in it. That is an ignorant opinion, at least in my opinion.

please point out where i used the word everyone in my post

thanks

Jimkel

nesf wrote: »

I can respect the people, it's their call. As much as I dislike the "rule of the mob"

It's called democracy brother, and that "Mob" is your fellow country men and women.

Oracle

I was disappointed, but not surprised, by Cowen's reaction on the news. When asked why he thought people voted No he said the were many factors, including extraneous ones. No mention of how he and his fellow Yes campaigners got it wrong. He looked frustrated and angry, nothing new there. He came across to me as a sore loser and someone who didn't want to admit any mistakes. Micheal Martin thoughout the campaign looked like he was ready to explode, he'll shortly need some blood pressure tablets if he's not careful.

Jimkel

Ulyanov wrote: »

This was not democracy in action. The very fact that there was such a poor voter turnout proves the people didnt know what they wanted. The people have not spoken, they didnt turn up.

You cannot base an argument on the people who chose not to vote. It's a clear no. The people have spoken, and if any of them chose not to then that is their choice too. Thats democracy.

Jimkel

Kovik wrote: »

Congratulations to Declan Ganley, an unaccountable, unelected, unvetted political spokesman with an enormous financial interest in the outcome of this vote, for purchasing a referendum.

Democracy indeed.

Thats a stupid statement, I don't like Ganley, I didnt listen to the No campaign. I read the treaty, which took a while, and then I voted no. Please don't tarnish the people who voted no with the same brush as the No campaign.

La Madame

The Irish shouldn't be allowed to vote on such important issues at all. This provincial and selfish Atlantic Island Community has benefited from the EU for decades. The EU has given so much to the ROI and still the place is crap.
Look only what u have achieved in the 90 years of your own independence ...
Really have a look at your Health System, Public Transport, Road Infra - Structure, and the continuing Environmental disaster etc

---

without the EU this place would be even worse, face it folks your are not made to run your own State so please do not stand in the way of the more civilised Nations which are going to shape a European future in the light of World Globalisation.

nesf

Jimkel wrote: »

It's called democracy brother, and that "Mob" is your fellow country men and women.

Indeed. The tyranny of the majority isn't any nicer when it's your fellow citizens who are in it.

Jimkel

Kovik wrote: »

Libertas spent more on their campaign than every major political party combined.

In addition, they refused to make the source of their funding public.

The vast majority of lay campaigners, leaflets and No advertising came from this group.

This wasn't a democratic exercise. It was a hatchet job by the person with the deepest pockets.

Do you honestly believe that the people voted No because of Ganley and his scaremongering, :rolleyes: He's just one man with his own opinions. I voiced my own opinion yesterday, which was in no way influenced by Sinn Fein or Libertas.

Jimkel

steviec wrote: »

Personally I've always thought it was a bad choice (albeit required by the constitution) to put issues that most of the public clearly don't understand to referendum,

So if somethings complicated we should have no say?? Sorry. but I don't think you understand democracy. It's that very elitist attitude that the general public are dumb, blind cattle that caused this kind of reaction.

Hagar

Don't be all getting your knickers in a twist.

Sure won't the Govt give you another chance to vote and get the answer right? Much like the Nice Treaty that was rejected and then approved on a second referendum? Yes I know they moved two commas to make the document technically different so that it could be voted on again.

At least the Irish people had the opportunity to vote even if their wishes are going to be ignored by their elected representatives, who otherwise hold their votes so dear. True democracy is dying in Europe IMHO.

nesf

Jimkel wrote: »

So if somethings complicated we should have no say?? Sorry. but I don't think you understand democracy. It's that very elitist attitude that the general public are dumb, blind cattle that caused this kind of reaction.

No, I think his point was that referendums are best used in single issue situations rather than with multifaceted treaties. If we could split the treaty into "bite sized pieces" and ratify it in pieces rather than all at once then I think the debate and the public would both be far more informed on it.

If it was simply, "Do you accept the proposed arrangement for the new Commission" it'd work a lot better as a referendum. That is a simple Yes/No question that people could easily understand, rather than having a monstrosity of a thing that most people couldn't possibly go to the bother of reading.

auerillo

steviec wrote: »

I find the "victory for democracy" claim interesting.

It's a pretty damning failure for representative democracy as far as I can see. When the democratically elected representatives of all 500 million people in the EU overwhelmingly support the treaty, but their decision gets vetoed by a public vote in one small corner of the union with a turn out of what I guess is a lot less than 1% of the people this treaty affects.

Technically, you are, of course right. Although it must be pointed out that if the voters of the UK. France, Holland and who knows elsewhere were allowed to vote, it seems pretty certain they would have also voted "no".

It really is no argument to say that because they voted in governments, then they should be happy with the decision their government make in such a fundamental issue.

We voted in Fianna Fail, and went on to reject the treaty, which demonstrates the flaw in that argument.

steviec wrote: »

Personally I've always thought it was a bad choice (albeit required by the constitution) to put issues that most of the public clearly don't understand to referendum,

The lesson of this exercise is that the politicians of he EU (and the non elected EU bureaucrats), are not reflecting what the people in the EU region want.

If the people can't understand what they are asked to vote on, this is no arguemnt to suggest that we should then not ask them. It is an argument to make what we are being asked to vote on understandable.

It used to be that the politicians represented the views of their constituents. Nowadays, it seems that the politicians are their to represent the views of the political elite and crowbar their constituents into agreeing with them.

Rather than representing their constituents, they are managing their constituents and trying to manipulate them, and their views, into what the elite want.

Jimkel

FrankGrimes wrote: »

I do think that any objective assessment can only conclude that a very significant portion of voters did not take the necessary actions to inform themselves on the meaning of this referendum and voted No as a result.

We we're given a choice , yes or no, or if we wished we could simply not vote or spoil our vote. The majority voted no, for their own individual reasons. SO now we have to listen to people like you sayin, oh they obviously voted no because they do not understand a simple yes or no question? Your contempt for the people of this country is shameful.

Jimkel

auerillo wrote: »

It used to be that the politicians represented the views of their constituents. Nowadays, it seems that the politicians are their to represent the views of the political elite and crowbar their constituents into agreeing with them.

Rather than representing their constituents, they are managing their constituents and trying to manipulate them, and their views, into what the elite want.

I agree. Others may not, it's just my opinion but I think your 100% right.;)

Jimkel

nesf wrote: »

No, I think his point was that referendums are best used in single issue situations rather than with multifaceted treaties. If we could split the treaty into "bite sized pieces" and ratify it in pieces rather than all at once then I think the debate and the public would both be far more informed on it.

If it was simply, "Do you accept the proposed arrangement for the new Commission" it'd work a lot better as a referendum. That is a simple Yes/No question that people could easily understand, rather than having a monstrosity of a thing that most people couldn't possibly go to the bother of reading.

I can agree with that.

Daftendirekt

auerillo wrote: »

Technically, you are, of course right. Although it must be pointed out that if the voters of the UK. France, Holland and who knows elsewhere were allowed to vote, it seems pretty certain they would have also voted "no".

I don't see how this is "pretty certain." Granted, France and The Netherlands voted against the Constitution, but what the No campaign conveniently forget to mention is that Spain, Luxembourg and Romania voted in favour of it.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

nesf

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I know that for many on the Yes side, the general feeling is that the big parties dropped the ball. In some areas that I've been hearing about where the cumanns were active and going door to door, the Yes vote was carried even when the rest of the constituency voted strongly for the No side. They didn't put the work in on the ground and are now reaping what they sowed.

Danno

Thank God this thing was rejected. Firstly, I don't want to be not represented in Europe for 5 out of every 15 years. Secondly, it is not fair that the rest of europe had only accepted this thing through their governments, not voters on the ground. That simply is enough of a reason to vote NO.

This should make all politicians sit up and take notice because they're not transparent enough in what they do.

A document like this was a pile of shyte and the fact that some eurocrats were paid by my tax and your tax (for 6 long years) to come up with this angers me.

As for "trusting" our government to make good decisions in europe for us - I highly doubt it. They can't even make good decisions at home and in and around Dublin FFS, what would they do out in Brussells?

No wonder people voted NO when the former LEADER of the country can't "remember" about winning money on the races. Well, Bertie, yea didn't win this on the horses, in fact, yea weren't even at the races. :P