List the possible reasons for a person voting NO.

DeVore

Given that the Boards poll was almost bang on the money, I'd like to run another poll to see which reasons (multiple choice, multiple votes) No voters give for voting no. Might be instructive since no one really knows why we had that outcome yesterday!

What I need is a comprehensive list of possible objections and reasons. Anything from "I dont like the QMV system" to "I didnt understand it so I voted no" to "I'm annoyed with the EU/Dail for other reasons and so voted No to stuff them".

Any stupid, loaded suggestions will find you on the outside of this forum pressing your nose us against its window...

DeV.

ejmaztec

I voted yes, but I think that the "No" camp got a huge bonus when it was proven that some of our elected representatives didn't know what was in the treaty. It seemed to be pretty much downhill after that. The "No" scare-mongering propaganda grabbed Joe Public's attention more than the "Yes" camp (except for me and a few otherss, that is).

turgon

Some possible options (although people might have more than one):

• Militerisation (Common Security and Defense)
• Lack of democracy in the Union
• No refernda in other countries
• Not being able to understand the treaty (because of it format, an amending treaty)
• Tax harmonization
• Workers rights

bug

• Non elected representatives making laws on our behalf
• self amending treaty
• article 34 other countries individuals not having a say
• the format of the treaty itself
• article 32 2(a)
• QMV
• the indication that information which may not have been favorable to a yes vote may have been withheld

Ps: I like the list idea.

In/Casino/Out

This whole forum is full of reasons to vote yes and reasons to vote no. I suggest you spend your time reading them to get a more accurate picture of why we voted no.
Lists may be clear but theres nothing like a good old fashioned debate to really get a feel for the opinions of members here. Also for the sake of anyone just browsing this thread I would want them to get the whole picture.

Rb

In/Casino/Out wrote: »

This whole forum is full of reasons to vote yes and reasons to vote no. I suggest you spend your time reading them to get a more accurate picture of why we voted no.
Lists may be clear but theres nothing like a good old fashioned debate to really get a feel for the opinions of members here. Also for the sake of anyone just browsing this thread I would want them to get the whole picture.

Give him a break, he's trying to compile a list for a poll to see what reasons were the most popular (or unpopular) and trying to read through everything that has been said in order to get a list of points would take a week at least.

In/Casino/Out

Ah for a poll, believe it or not I somehow missed that. Apologies!

billy the squid

Politicians who hadn't read the treaty themselves telling me to vote yes.

Mistrust of the people trying to sell me this treaty.

A refusal by the government to legislate in relation to Collective Bargaining as set down by the Charter of Rights.

A lack of democracy

The loss of a commissioner for five of every 15 years.

The fact that there was a set figure put down on how much we should spend on defence, yet not on education or health.

whitser

i voted no because mainly because i dont like the direction i feel the eu is slowly and stealthy going. towards a federal europe or a united states of europe as some have called it. i feel that brussells already have to much say in our laws and affairs, look at the water charges for schools, eu directive:mad:,for example. i believe the eu should be about co-operation by independent soverign states on issues of mutual interest and not a merging together of states under a eu banner.
i also didnt like the wat every other country wasnr given a vote. fact they woul've voted the same as us and the french and dutch. the people dont want the europe the political elite want.

hatrickpatrick

I voted yes, but only because the government scared me into it with their talk of serious financial problems if we voted no. However, here are my reasons for opposing the treaty:

Carrying a torch: I am fundamentally opposed to deciding the future of 490 million people. Everyone in the EU should have been allowed to vote on this, and I think it's an absolute disgrace that, in their own words, they designed the treaty specifically to avoid having to hold referenda in most countries.

Tax: Let's not kid ourselves. We may have had an opt out from tax decisions, but no one ruled out the possibility of a future EU motion harmonizing tax - and with majority voting, even if we voted no, it would still go through. Majority voting, as I see it, would have given a back door to countries removing our opt-outs and protection from such meddling.

Politics: I am adamant that the EU should remain a purely economic union. Allowing them to over ride countries sovereignty in areas like law and justice is a step too far in the direction of a Unisted States of Europe. Countries in Europe must be clearly defined as seperate entities, not parts of a superstate like american states are.

Militarization: The common foreign policy. What happens if a majority of countries vote that we will officially approve of the war in Iraq? I maintain that Ireland should have an absolute right to make its own mind up about foreign affairs. And just because a majority of EU countries approves of something, it shouldn't mean we have to as well.

Being bullied: We were bullied about this on two fronts. First of all, the EU warning of the consequences of a no vote, secondly, the government doing to. I absolutely loathe being patronized, and even if I had liked the text of the treaty, I would have opposed it just to give the two fingers to anyone who thinks they can force a population to bend to their will, be they our government or the EU itself.

To sum it up: The treaty concentrates far too much power in Brussels. We're Irish, and we should for nearly all policy matters be allowed to govern ourselves. That, and I also believe that every EU citizens should vote on such matters. It's disgraceful that the French tell us we've put Europe in a very difficult position when they know perfectly well that, had there been a referendum in France, the treaty would have been destroyed long ago.

It's a cache 22 situation though, in that I do agree with a lot of the treaty.This is why I believe it should have been a series of seperate treaties rather than one massive one - there were bound to be bits of it people would oppose since it was such a wide ranging document; We should have been given specific choices (IE: Do you approve of the majority voting, yes/no, do you approve of the charter or human rights, yes/no, do you support the common foreign policy post, yes/no, etc). Had that been the case, I would certainly have ratified the charter of rights, and I would have, given guarantees that IReland's opt-outs are secure, approved of the majority rule as well.

nesf

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Tax: Let's not kid ourselves. We may have had an opt out from tax decisions, but no one ruled out the possibility of a future EU motion harmonizing tax - and with majority voting, even if we voted no, it would still go through. Majority voting, as I see it, would have given a back door to countries removing our opt-outs and protection from such meddling.

As a single point. QMV and majority voting would not have applied in tax issues. We kept our veto in that it remained an issue that a) the EU had no competency in and b) it stayed as an area that required unanimous voting.

Outside of Ireland there are many countries in the EU as opposed to tax harmonisation as we are. This was not a problem in this treaty, a further amendment would have been needed to enact changes and because of the nature of it, it would, in my understanding, require another referendum here.


Personally, if I thought for a second that Lisbon made fiscal policy (i.e. taxes) a QMV issue I'd have not just voted No but would have probably been actively canvassing for a No.

johnlambe

I think the broad areas are mainly:

(Those already covered are in italic).

• Lack of democracy / accountability
• Loss of sovereignty / New powers granted to the EU
• Reduction in our voting strength / loss of veto (could be merged with the previous one)
• Militarisation
• Immigration / Enlargement
• Lack of understanding of treaty
• Tax harmonisation / other economic reasons
• Lack of trust of the EU
• Certain specific reasons claimed in the campaign: Abortion, euthanasia, drugs, etc.
• Other

Some other suggestions here are examples of these areas.
Of course, some of these are scaremongering reasons, but it's worth asking, to see if people believed them.
I don't know how detailed you want to make the options.

If you want more detailled options, 'Lack of democracy' would include our Commissioner having to be approved by the Commission, and several other specific points posted here already.


It might be more useful to ask something like:
What's the most important thing that would have to change for you to accept it?

Dirk Gently

whitser wrote: »

i believe the eu should be about co-operation by independent soverign states on issues of mutual interest and not a merging together of states under a eu banner.

This.

I think Europe takes representative democracy a step too far, a step towards unrepresentative democracy. The connection between direct democracy (you the citizen electing your national representative) who then "represents" you nationally (weaker representative democracy) who then is represented by greater European representatives is very fragile indeed.

Can Lisbon work with greater democracy, I don't think it can in fairness, nothing would ever be agreed. This is why my choice was about a greater Europe more so than about what was contained in the treaty. I'm very much an internationalist, but through co-operation and solidarity rather than diluting my local vote even further. My vote for my representative in National elections is pretty much the only say I have and it's inadequate as it is already.
For the record I think the No campaign (looking at you libertas) purposely misrepresented the treaty. (I wonder what their agenda is)I view Libertas (an unaccountable businessman with money and spin doctors) a bigger threat to sovereignty than the Lisbon treaty was.


For those on the Yes side who wish Lisbon to proceed I suggest more transparency and more legitimacy. The treaty should be translated into a book / novel (a work of non fiction) and written clearly in flowing easy to understand english. The contents of the book should be a guarantee which, if broken nullifies the treaty for the people who voted on it. It should also be a complete work and not "final chapter to be continued behind close doors". The biggest mistake of the yes side was allowing scaremongers on the No side to exploit the legal language of the treaty and also of appearing elitist and disregarding and resentful of democracy.

If asked again I will still vote No but a little effort from the yes side in engaging with the citizens and wholeheartedly taking on Libertas will go a long way to swinging a Yes vote. This should have happened this time round though and I will be quiet annoyed if it was forced onto us again.

Ideally the citizens of europe as a whole would get to vote on it but this is unlikely to happen because it's unlikely they would vote Yes. If the people can not be democratically convinced of something then it should be scrapped, regardless of whether it was a good thing or not. Comments about a 100,000 paddys ruining it on half a billion citizens are also well wide of the mark. Ask half a billion citizens first before you speak for them. Also, for europe to work democratically, national elections should be as focussed as much (if not more) on europe. You can't expect to vote for the local FF TD because he fixed the street lights in your estate and then expect everything you want for Ireland from the other 26 european states.

The_Minister

Nuclear power was toted by SF and the People's Party.

projectmayhem

tbh i think the "yes" camp would have won had the issues been explained to joe public. the fact that no public representatives came to our house to chat to us about the treaty shows how much confidence the government had in this. they didn't know what the treaty was about themselves.

while i wouldn't wholly agree with what the treaty had, i think voting yes was for better then worse. but i read a up on the issues... a lot. i tried to gain a decent understanding of what i was voting on. clearly our elected reps didn't do this.

as such i think a lot of "maybe" voting came out, and if you're not sure what you're voting for, the best bet is to vote no.

i'm not saying the no camp had no influence, i just think the maybe camp had a huge bearing on the no vote winning

swimfan22

I hate this stupid belief in the 'loss' of a commissioner for five of every fifteen years.

Firstly, so does everyone else! It's not like just the smaller countries lose their commissioner, the powerhouse countries like Germany, France and the UK are in exactly the same position! It's actually become fairer than it was a decade ago, when the Germany, the UK et al had two commissioners!!

Secondly, commissioners DO NOT REPRESENT THEIR MEMBER STATE! They are nominated by their government, approved by the European Parliament and they then work on behalf of the EU as a whole! They do not represent their countries' individual interests and can in fact be dismissed for showing overt favouritism.

On this issue I think the 'No' campaign distorted this issue and scaremongered with it, capitalising on the public's fuzzy understanding of the commissioners' role.

irish_bob

i think the arguement that those who voted no did so for purely legit reasons is to give the electorate far too much credit

most people hadnt a clue what the thing was about , what helped them decide to vote no was not just the agressive in your face campaign full of lies and distortions mounted by the no side
the fact that the economy is heading south , the fact that the cost of living in the past yr especially has shot up mainly due to the increase in fuel and food prices , people were simply in a bad mood and because they didnt really care or understand the actual text of the treaty and were sick to the back teeth of hearing about it , they decided to use the treaty as a scapegoat for there present and very valid frustrations
i agree too that the yes vote failed miserably to hammer home the nesscesity of voting yes and to also disproove the untruths of the no side but i also firmly believe that there were very few true believers on the no side , this referendum happend at the wrong time , had it been held 3 yrs ago when the good times were still with us , it would have sailed home

PH01

I'd like to see a poll on this - I'm very interested to see what is the main reason why people voted NO

robindch

Abortion should be a main head, not a sub-head -- I know of a few people who voted against because abortion was on the way if it went through; or so they'd been told by Coir anyway.

towel401

more powerful european government

easier for them to push new regulations through. The EU is already quite over-regulated

I think the EU has become far too centralised already. it was a good idea at the start, but they have taken it too far. I think Ireland should join the EEA

Less commisioners in service means it will be easier for large corporations to lobby for new laws, like the software patents that almost got passed a few years back

Kick in the face for FF, want to see how they go about re-running the referendum. If they are stupid enough to try it might backfire on them. this means fianna fail will be gone for a while, also a good thing.

towel401

swimfan22 wrote: »

I hate this stupid belief in the 'loss' of a commissioner for five of every fifteen years.

Firstly, so does everyone else! It's not like just the smaller countries lose their commissioner, the powerhouse countries like Germany, France and the UK are in exactly the same position! It's actually become fairer than it was a decade ago, when the Germany, the UK et al had two commissioners!!

these commisioners have a habit for going on expensive yacht cruises with the likes of Paul Allen (former Microsoft staffer) then they come back and try to bring in new patent laws.

so the more commisioners there are, the harder it is to bring in new crap that might not be a good thing.

hatrickpatrick

Towel hit the nail on the head. To sum up: The EU already has too much power over domestic affairs of states, and no one wants to give it any more. And as a small nation, Ireland would have less ability to protect itself from harmful EU decisions.

ircoha

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Towel hit the nail on the head. To sum up: The EU already has too much power over domestic affairs of states, and no one wants to give it any more. And as a small nation, Ireland would have less ability to protect itself from harmful EU decisions.

However dont forget that our elected morans have to implement the directives and that they can apply for derogation/exemptions etc.

1st case in point: the row over water charges in schools: most of the rest of europe left schools out of that directive but FF did not.

2nd case in point: the proposed provisions of the new telecoms data retention/storage directive is that they have gone for a longer storage period and for a lower level of 'crime' than is required by the directive.

see http://www.mneylon.com/blog/archives/2008/06/12/eamon-ryan-what-purpose-does-he-serve/

OPENROAD

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The EU already has too much power over domestic affairs of states

Would also agree with the above and would be my main concern.

No refernda in other countries, Lets put it to each member state.

The reaction to the no vote has made me more hardline no, that should be it regarding the Treaty but of course it won't.

SkepticOne

Added two at the end.

• Lack of democracy / accountability
• Loss of sovereignty / New powers granted to the EU
• Reduction in our voting strength / loss of veto (could be merged with the previous one)
• Militarisation
• Immigration / Enlargement
  
• Lack of understanding of treaty
• Tax harmonisation / other economic reasons
• Lack of trust of the EUd
  
• Certain specific reasons claimed in the campaign: Abortion, euthanasia, drugs, etc.

• Proceeding with the democratically rejected constition (France/Holland) by other means.
• Disagreement with the EU project and the ultimate goal of a European state.

snickerpuss

Quite a few people I know voted to stop Conscription.
My grandparents basically voted as a protest against the government for other things.
Most people I know just said they didn't understand it.

Oman

Heres why i think it was a No

Fear Of consciption.

Loss of independence

However i dont think i can say the main reason for a No vote but when workers heard that there employers wanted a Yes, then they voted No

fergalr

* Lack of democracy / accountability
* Loss of sovereignty / New powers granted to the EU
* Reduction in our voting strength / loss of veto (could be merged with the previous one)
* Militarisation
* Immigration / Enlargement
* Lack of understanding of treaty
* Tax harmonisation / other economic reasons
* Lack of trust of the EUd
* Certain specific reasons claimed in the campaign: Abortion, euthanasia, drugs, etc.
* Proceeding with the democratically rejected constition (France/Holland) by other means.
* Disagreement with the EU project and the ultimate goal of a European state.
* Concern about Conscription.
* Protest against the government for other things.
* Didn't understand it.


I think that's shaping up to be a good list.
[Disagreement with ... the ultimate goal of a European state] is very important, it's a reason I've heard a lot of people say.

I'd also suggest that some farmers would have voted against the treaty on the basis that they were worried about EU/WTO talks damaging Irish argiculture.
Not saying this is a very strongly represented demographic on boards, but it would appear to be a reason for a good chunk of the rural population.
(Despite the farming organisations endorsing the Yes vote in the end).

I'd also agree that abortion needs to be a root level heading, as that seems to be a big reason in rural areas. (without commenting on it's validity).


Perhaps also, as others have said, some people voted No as a reaction to being 'threatened' into voting yes (french FM comments etc)


One suggestion about the poll DeVore, when you create it, could you please make it very clear whether you are asking:
A) individual No Voters why they voted No,
or
if you are asking people in general why they thought No voters voted no.

As those are two very different questions, and I suspect it will be hard to dissuade some of the more passionate Yes camp here from answering

irish_bob

fergalr wrote: »

* Lack of democracy / accountability
* Loss of sovereignty / New powers granted to the EU
* Reduction in our voting strength / loss of veto (could be merged with the previous one)
* Militarisation
* Immigration / Enlargement
* Lack of understanding of treaty
* Tax harmonisation / other economic reasons
* Lack of trust of the EUd
* Certain specific reasons claimed in the campaign: Abortion, euthanasia, drugs, etc.
* Proceeding with the democratically rejected constition (France/Holland) by other means.
* Disagreement with the EU project and the ultimate goal of a European state.
* Concern about Conscription.
* Protest against the government for other things.
* Didn't understand it.


I think that's shaping up to be a good list.
[Disagreement with ... the ultimate goal of a European state] is very important, it's a reason I've heard a lot of people say.

I'd also suggest that some farmers would have voted against the treaty on the basis that they were worried about EU/WTO talks damaging Irish argiculture.
Not saying this is a very strongly represented demographic on boards, but it would appear to be a reason for a good chunk of the rural population.
(Despite the farming organisations endorsing the Yes vote in the end).

I'd also agree that abortion needs to be a root level heading, as that seems to be a big reason in rural areas. (without commenting on it's validity).


Perhaps also, as others have said, some people voted No as a reaction to being 'threatened' into voting yes (french FM comments etc)


One suggestion about the poll DeVore, when you create it, could you please make it very clear whether you are asking:
A) individual No Voters why they voted No,
or
if you are asking people in general why they thought No voters voted no.

As those are two very different questions, and I suspect it will be hard to dissuade some of the more passionate Yes camp here from answering

the IFA,s threatning to withold there support for the treaty unless they got what they wanted on wto was disgracefully cynical and has completly backfired in my opinion
the irish delegation at the wto talks will be much more shy about banging there fists on the table for the farmers now

nesf

fergalr wrote: »

One suggestion about the poll DeVore, when you create it, could you please make it very clear whether you are asking:
A) individual No Voters why they voted No,
or
if you are asking people in general why they thought No voters voted no.

As those are two very different questions, and I suspect it will be hard to dissuade some of the more passionate Yes camp here from answering

I think A) and are both important. It would interesting to see if there was a lot of divergence between what the Yes group and the No group thought about those who voted No.

Arguably though this isn't the correct "forum" for this. The really interesting group to talk to would not be the ones who would visit forums like this to inform themselves but the ones who made their minds up in the day or two before the referendum.

johnlambe

fergalr wrote: »

One suggestion about the poll DeVore, when you create it, could you please make it very clear whether you are asking:
A) individual No Voters why they voted No,
or
if you are asking people in general why they thought No voters voted no.

As those are two very different questions, and I suspect it will be hard to dissuade some of the more passionate Yes camp here from answering

I agree.
Asking 'No' voters why they actually voted 'No' is likely to give a more accurate indication of the reasons for the 'No' vote.
There is a risk of 'Yes' voters voting insincerely in this - either what they think the reasons were, or to discredit 'No' voters.

Adding an option, 'I voted Yes', might tend to discourage this. (And it should be made very clear that 'Yes' voters should not give any other answer).