For those of you who voted yes...

PopeBuckfastXVI

turgon wrote: »

Hitler put nearly seven years into world war two*, and yet I for one am glad he didnt get it his way.



*including Anchluss and the Czechoslovakia takeover.

Oh hello Mr. Godwin... how nice of you to show up.


I would absolutely vote 'yes' again. Just like I'll be voting Green again in the next GE, and like I would have voted 'yes' in both divorce referenda.

It's democracy in action to have more than one vote my friends, otherwise you have an elected dictatorship!

Not only would I vote 'yes' but I'd get seriously and actively involved in campaigning, in particular in refuting the misinformation from the extremely vested interests on the 'no' side: Li_er__s (You can fill in the blanks)

ixtlan

Lazyfox wrote: »

Rather than taking a dressing down from Sarkcozy et al on Thursday, Cowen should before Thursday announce publicly a recommendation for a referendum in every country in the EU. Let the 500 million vote and come back to us if the majority agree.

Is that a majority of the 500 million in total? Which would likely pass, or a majority of people in each EU country, which would be likely to fail somewhere.

Is the EU more democratic if the 500 million vote together? Or if each country votes?

Ix.

ixtlan

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Not only would I vote 'yes' but I'd get seriously and actively involved in campaigning, in particular in refuting the misinformation from the extremely vested interests on the 'no' side: Li_er__s (You can fill in the blanks)

+1.

Scofflaw

ixtlan wrote: »

Is that a majority of the 500 million in total? Which would likely pass, or a majority of people in each EU country, which would be likely to fail somewhere.

Is the EU more democratic if the 500 million vote together? Or if each country votes?

Ix.

I would support an EU-wide referendum, I have to say.


cordially,
Scofflaw

TelePaul

I'd vote Yes a second time if given the opportunity. I don't find anything wrong with the OP's quotes.

MG

I'd vote yes again and I'd actually turn it around and ask No voters if they would vote no again? The reaction I am sensing from No voters I know (albeit middle class non-extremist types) is "oh my God, what have we done".
Seems to me that the Yes campaign didn't really want to address the consequences of a No vote in case they were accused of scaremongers and the No campaign were either cynical or naive in calling for Cowan to go back for a better deal. I wonder how many middle class No voters now regret their decision?

ninebeanrows

From what i noticed around my area, the people involved in GAA, Church events etc voted No while other people voted Yes.

Perhaps we could have the pub in all GAA clubs giving out free pints all day and have a 15 hour long church day during the next referendum:D

ixtlan

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would support an EU-wide referendum, I have to say.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes, I would too. However we both know that such a thing would be pointed to as an example of the much-feared EU super-state. So in the end I don't think this would actually gain much democratic credibility for the EU. We'd have people aghast at the idea of our few million being swamped by the hundreds of millions in Europe (the rest of... we are all Europe of course)

And of course we'd still have to have our own referendum anyhow...Ix.

irish_bob

Weathercheck wrote: »

From what i noticed around my area, the people involved in GAA, Church events etc voted No while other people voted Yes.

Perhaps we could have the pub in all GAA clubs giving out free pints all day and have a 15 hour long church day during the next referendum:D

theres a very good chance that would work , theres no better way of getting us irish on side then by buying us out with perks
we are a deeply unidealogical people which is why i firmly believe that the majority of people who voted no hadnt a clue what was in the actual text of the treaty
enough people bought the lie that it was in our interest to vote no

if the question had simply been , vote yes for more money in your pocket which if you break it down into those simple terms then the yes side would have rompled home

Khannie

MG wrote: »

I wonder how many middle class No voters now regret their decision?

Indeed. One lad in our office was duped by the abortion muppets at the last second (litterally minutes before he voted). When we told him that he had been duped and that our position on abortion was safe he seemed more than a little bit upset.

turgon

MG wrote: »

I wonder how many middle class No voters now regret their decision?

I for one don't. In fact the quotes and the general eurowide reaction has just heightened my concerns that the EU doesn't stand up for democracy.

IRLConor

turgon wrote: »

MG wrote:

I wonder how many middle class No voters now regret their decision?

I for one don't. In fact the quotes and the general eurowide reaction has just heightened my concerns that the EU doesn't stand up for democracy.

The difference is that you were an educated no voter with solid logical reasons for voting no. From what I can remember, they were based primarily on the treaty too!

I'm sure there are plenty of both yes and no voters out there who are disappointed at the way they voted on reflection.

If we do end up voting again on the treaty (or some variant thereof) are there any boardsies that are willing to help me put together a guide to the issue at hand? I'd be particularly interested in getting no campaigners to help make it as impartial as possible. I'm thinking of a combination of explanatory document and an FAQ-like section addressing the claims of all the political parties/lobby groups in an impartial manner.

ionix5891

I would defnately vote YES and this time i would get of my ass and campaign for it.


"Keep Ireland strong in Europe"

the above NO posters ring very hollow now

turgon

IRLConor wrote: »

If we do end up voting again on the treaty (or some variant thereof) are there any boardsies that are willing to help me put together a guide to the issue at hand?

Sign me up! The exams finish on Friday so ill be free then. But I would imagine there would be no need: I doubt there will be a second referendum on the exact same thing. But I will help if it comes around.

zig

Roxanne wrote: »

....would you vote no if the referendum was put to us a second time after hearing the reaction of European politicians in the aftermath of our decision?

There will be calls in the EU to ensure that a few thousand Irish voters do not hold up half a billion European citizens who want this treaty. -Antonio Missiroli
With all respect for the Irish vote, we cannot allow the huge majority of Europe to be duped by a minority of a minority of a minority. -Axel Schafer

These were posted in another thread. Do these quotes not clearly show that these people have no respect for democracy. The clear disregard for the "minority" , which is what Ireland and many other smaller countries represent in the EU is worrying to say the least.
Would you reconsider your yes vote after hearing this? I know I would.

I voted yes and campaigned for a yes vote, I am neither a member or a supporter of any political party. But I didnt let my like or dislike of any politician get in the way of my vote. I read as much as I could of the treaty and made my decision.

However after seeing some of these quotes from european politicans,and reading reactions of european press I am now strongly reconsidering my decision. I am starting to realise that this treaty would probably never have been passed if the whole of Europe was to vote. So they go ahead without listening to the people. Thats not democracy

IRLConor

turgon wrote: »

Sign me up! The exams finish on Friday so ill be free then. But I would imagine there would be no need: I doubt there will be a second referendum on the exact same thing. But I will help if it comes around.

Great!

I also doubt that we'll have a referendum on the exact same thing. That said, similar arguments come up in nearly every referendum on EU matters so it would be worth trying to explain which bits are true, which bits are stretching the truth, which bits are outright lies and which bits are the paranoid rantings of lunatics.

ionix5891

IRLConor wrote: »

Great!

I also doubt that we'll have a referendum on the exact same thing. That said, similar arguments come up in nearly every referendum on EU matters so it would be worth trying to explain which bits are true, which bits are stretching the truth, which bits are outright lies and which bits are the paranoid rantings of lunatics.

i agree

anyways aint the above the Job description of the Referendum commision?

IRLConor

zig wrote: »

I am starting to realise that this treaty would probably never have been passed if the whole of Europe was to vote.

I reckon that if they had a referendum in all countries it would have been rejected by more than one.

That said, in a perfect world where everyone read the treaty itself, understood it and only voted on the contents of it I reckon it would have been passed by all countries.

Roxanne

zig wrote: »

I voted yes and campaigned for a yes vote, I am neither a member or a supporter of any political party. But I didnt let my like or dislike of any politician get in the way of my vote. I read as much as I could of the treaty and made my decision.

However after seeing some of these quotes from european politicans,and reading reactions of european press I am now strongly reconsidering my decision. I am starting to realise that this treaty would probably never have been passed if the whole of Europe was to vote. So they go ahead without listening to the people. Thats not democracy

I would be similar to yourself in this regard. I did not listen to the propaganda of either side of the debate. I made an effort to educate myself on the issues at stake. I voted no.

I think it is terribly arrogant of alot of the yes voters on here to assume that people who voted NO are stupid and didn't understand the issues - were listening to lies from Libertas and Sinn Féin etc. The same can equally be said of the people who voted yes but yet people who voted no are being told they are stupid and ignorant.
It seems to me that if you voted yes then you are considered to be educated and understanding of the issues at hand, if you voted no you are told you obviously don't understand the issues at hand and questioned at length as to why you didn't vote yes. This is not respecting democracy.

I voted no and I do not regret my decision one bit. I still believe in and stand by my reasons why I voted no and I will not be bullied or frightened into thinking differently by anyone.

The quotes from the European ministers above simply reaffirm one of my reasons for voting no in the first place.

IRLConor

ionix5891 wrote: »

anyways aint the above the Job description of the Referendum commision?

Yes, but they don't comment directly on campaign claims made by either side and their information tends to be quite dumbed down [EDIT: or at least when they translated from legal-speak to English they lost some of the precision in the info]. They also present the information as an impartial observer rather than the consensus position of opposing sides. I think people are more likely to believe the latter than the former because it's hard to believe in the concept of an impartial observer.

What I envisage is a guide which explains the technical details as well as the fuzzy bits in what we'd be voting on. Everything would have direct citation links back to the treaty itself and complicated things like voting systems would be tested and simulated to give a hard mathematical/scientific background to the information presented. A strong emphasis would be put on verifiability so that a sceptical observer could prove to themselves that we weren't lying to them.

heyjude

ejmaztec wrote: »

I'd still vote yes, but the other idiots would still vote no.

A typical YES campaigner then, the people who agree with me are sound rational intelligent people and those that disagree are just idiots. How refreshing it must be to know that you are 100% right and those 800,000+ NO voters are wrong. But maybe just maybe the attitude of the EU towards us as regards the democratic decision of our people in this referendum, will show us exactly what type of Europe is being planned.

Will they respect our decision or decide to ignore it ? And if they ignore us now, what does that say about our chances of being listened to in the future ? Or will they only listen when they agree with what we are saying ?

Lazyfox wrote: »

Rather than taking a dressing down from Sarkcozy et al on Thursday, Cowen should before Thursday announce publicly a recommendation for a referendum in every country in the EU. Let the 500 million vote and come back to us if the majority agree.

There is absolutely no reason for Ireland to have to apologise for the democratic answer of the people.

My thoughts exactly. Cowen works for us, so no apologies, put it up to them and let all the people of the EU have a direct say on the matter, I feel we'd be far from the only ones to reject the Treaty then.

ionix5891

Roxanne wrote: »

I think it is terribly arrogant of alot of the yes voters on here to assume that people who voted NO are stupid and didn't understand the issues - were listening to lies from Libertas and Sinn Féin etc.

hmm arrogant? have you seen what people across the world are reading today about Irish voters??
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/14/ireland.eu

A voter in County Clare, not content with putting an X beside the no option on the simple ballot paper in the Irish referendum on the Lisbon treaty, included a long letter of protest. Its message to the Irish government, which had campaigned desperately for a yes vote, was: "You forgot us in Shannon." The anonymous voter was using the opportunity of a vote on the structural reform of the European Union to protest against the withdrawal by the newly privatised state airline Aer Lingus of its regular service between Shannon airport and Heathrow. You would have to pity the poor Eurocrats contemplating the wreckage of the results of eight years of negotiation and compromise. What could they possibly say to a voter whose message, however urgent, was not about qualified majority voting or enhanced cooperation, but the operations of a local airline?

or my favourite one!

Or to the woman in Galway City who told RTE radio that she entered the polling booth undecided but "I got a bit of information that, if I voted yes, my sons would be drafted into the army, so I voted no ... Our sons are too good-looking for the army"? The irony is that the very absurdity of the woman's fears make them almost impossible to address.

its a shame being from galway for me hearing the above.

or have you seen the redneck on BBC news saying he voted NO because he was to thick to understand what this was about? reflects very well on us doesn't it

IRLConor wrote: »

Yes, but they don't comment directly on campaign claims made by either side and their information tends to be quite dumbed down [EDIT: or at least when they translated from legal-speak to English they lost some of the precision in the info]. They also present the information as an impartial observer rather than the consensus position of opposing sides. I think people are more likely to believe the latter than the former because it's hard to believe in the concept of an impartial observer.



What I envisage is a guide which explains the technical details as well as the fuzzy bits in what we'd be voting on. Everything would have direct citation links back to the treaty itself and complicated things like voting systems would be tested and simulated to give a hard mathematical/scientific background to the information presented. A strong emphasis would be put on verifiability so that a sceptical observer could prove to themselves that we weren't lying to them.

i wish we had something like that a week ago

IRLConor

ionix5891 wrote: »

Or to the woman in Galway City who told RTE radio that she entered the polling booth undecided but "I got a bit of information that, if I voted yes, my sons would be drafted into the army, so I voted no ... Our sons are too good-looking for the army"? The irony is that the very absurdity of the woman's fears make them almost impossible to address.

I've highlighted the clearly false bits for everyone, just in case anyone missed them.

IRLConor

ionix5891 wrote: »

i wish we had something like that a week ago

I'm kinda pissed off I didn't think of it earlier.

turgon

ionix5891 wrote: »

i agree

anyways aint the above the Job description of the Referendum commision?

Yeah but their stuff wasnt that brilliant. Forum on Europe publication was better.

I think a good slant would be to raise an issue , explain it fully (maybe refer to the text) then have an opinion from both sides of the debate.

Example: New Commission

The EU commission, from 2014, will be reduced to 2/3 of its present size to 18 members. Each member state will have a right to nominate a person for 10 out of every 15 years etc..

YES SIDE: This will slim down the commission, streamlining it. It is the best method we could have got.

NO SIDE: Ireland should have a permanent commissioner to ensure its voice is hear (although I personally dont care, this is a issue for many No-siders.)

Rhonda9000

zig wrote: »

I voted yes and campaigned for a yes vote, I am neither a member or a supporter of any political party. But I didnt let my like or dislike of any politician get in the way of my vote. I read as much as I could of the treaty and made my decision.

However after seeing some of these quotes from european politicans,and reading reactions of european press I am now strongly reconsidering my decision. I am starting to realise that this treaty would probably never have been passed if the whole of Europe was to vote. So they go ahead without listening to the people. Thats not democracy

Hmmmmm, I feel the need for reform is so pressing and now 7 years overdue that I can understand the desperation and disappointment at the rejection so it would not change my vote.

The treaty cuts out advantages gleaned by Ireland from an older system which have to be given up to make way for expansion and was always going to be difficult to sell. Democracy is such an elastic concept and when put up against tainted self-interests and selfishness of the average member of the electorate it will never hold up. The no campaign was so hideously alarmist and misinformative that I feel the result it produced was also not democratic.

Roxanne

ionix5891 wrote: »

hmm arrogant? have you seen what people across the world are reading today about Irish voters??
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/14/ireland.eu




or my favourite one!




its a shame being from galway for me hearing the above.

or have you seen the redneck on BBC news saying he voted NO because he was to thick to understand what this was about? reflects very well on us doesn't it

Oh I didn't see that! Oh well then, obviously EVERYONE who voted no voted for those reasons did they?:rolleyes:. Just cos you found three people who voted no for idiotic reasons doesn't mean everyone who voted no is a gobsh*te!!!
Why can't you people understand that alot of people who voted no voted for reasons which are just as valid as the reasons why people voted yes!
God almighty.

ionix5891

Roxanne wrote: »

Oh I didn't see that! Oh well then, obviously EVERYONE who voted no voted for those reasons did they?:rolleyes:. Just cos you found three people who voted no for idiotic reasons doesn't mean everyone who voted no is a gobsh*te!!!
Why can't you people understand that alot of people who voted no voted for reasons which are just as valid as the reasons why people voted yes!
God almighty.

chill out i am not personally attacking you, i am sure there are people like you who came to your conclusion by process of reasoning and hearing both sides


i respect that at least you used your head


what i was trying to say from talking to people, reading newspapers, watching tv news and reading comments on various websites it seems to me a good chunk of people on both sides voted for reasons other than the Treaty and haven't used their head

TelePaul

Roxanne wrote: »

Oh I didn't see that! Oh well then, obviously EVERYONE who voted no voted for those reasons did they?:rolleyes:. Just cos you found three people who voted no for idiotic reasons doesn't mean everyone who voted no is a gobsh*te!!!

I don't think anyone was saying that. But if there were three people voting 'no' for extremely unfounded reasons, there were, in all likelihood, a great deal more voting 'no' for partially unfounded reasons. Simple bell curve approach.

Roxanne wrote: »

Why can't you people understand that alot of people who voted no voted for reasons which are just as valid as the reasons why people voted yes!
God almighty.

Well, partly because a great many voters were instructed to vote 'no' if they didn't understand what it was they were voting for. Oh and because there have been no documented cases as yet of a 'yes' vote being accompanied by a letter supporting the closure of the Shannon - Heathrow route.

Rhonda9000

turgon wrote: »

YES SIDE: This will slim down the commission, streamlining it. It is the best method we could have got.

NO SIDE: Ireland should have a permanent commissioner to ensure its voice is heard

The No (not turgon specifically) campaign deliberately made this loss-of-Commissioner business a huge issue and enjoyed falsifying and misrepresenting it.

For the love of God, the fact is Commissioners are bound by their office to represent the union as a whole and not the nationality of their Commissioner. In addition, the new approach ensured equality whereby everybody from Germany to Malta had a Commissioner holding office in the exact same way as every other member state. Even the no campaigners must illogical and ridiculous members cannot argue that equality is bad.