More annoying Creationism or Lisbon Treaty rejection?

Tim Robbins

Some of the reasons for No are more annoying than anything I have heard for creationism. I am gutted about Friday and need to let off some steam. Here of some examples of some of the stupidest arguments I have heard in recent weeks.

Exampe 1: I am not voing No to something I can't understand?
Retort 1.a:
Why don't you abstain if you can't understand?
Retort 1.b:
If you don't want to read a complicated treaty, read the refcom summary.

Example 2: I don't like FF or the scandals about Bertie.
Retort 2.a: This is treaty about Europe not FF or Bertie.

Example 3: It's too complicated, it should be simplier.
Retort: Do you honestly expect a legal agreement between 27 countries which must be detailed, to be like a postman pat story?

Example 4: I don't trust Irish politicians.
Retort a: Well then why are you voting against something which helps the EU not Irish politicians.
Retort b: What's the logical conclusion of that? Get rid of all Irish politicians?

Example 5: I don't like the way the ECB put up interest rates?
Retort: So what's the logical conclusion, revert to having our own central bank, leave the Euro and revert to using the punt?

Example 6: We are loosing our Commissioner?
Retort a: We have the same commisioner rights as any other country, including Germany and France.
Retort b: The commissioners are legally obliged not to show any bias to their own country anyway.

Example 7: I don't see like the idea of an EU superstate?
Retort a: So do you think the world should be run by the US and China? Or should we just become a US proxy?
Retort b: How about ideas such as co-operation and economies of scale, are you against them as well?

Example 8: The EU is not democratic. Why aren't other countries having their say?
Every country elected representatives to negotiate that treaty for them.
Some countries have had a bad experience with referendums because they are a good way of creating misunderstandings and discontent. In Germany, Hitler used referendums to grow his power base for example.

Basically we have said no without offering one intelligble reason why or one constructive suggestion for a way forward. It just looks like we are not interested in the EU unless we are getting massive handouts. That treaty took 6 years to negotiate. There were millions of niggly points. Even whether to include the references to our Christian heritage. A compromise was reached between 27 elected governments. The EU is one of the few international organisations that has any concept of ethics, labour laws, the environment, the importance of science and it makes sense we work together. Everything that was a major issue for us, e.g. tax, we got our way. Now, we just look stupid and greedy and I ashamed of being Irish.

The tactics the No campaign used were very similar to creationism. Look at the complexity of something, create doubt and fear. Offer absolutely nothing better with any substance.

Very sad day. Either the EU project will stall or else move on without us.

Dave!

It's a close one mate

Akrasia

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Example 4: I don't trust Irish politicians.
Retort a: Well then why are you voting against something which helps the EU not Irish politicians.
Retort b: What's the logical conclusion of that? Get rid of all Irish politicians?

There is a very strong reason to believe that we were being deceived (not just by Irish politicians)

The coverage of Sarcozi has been very interesting post referendum with many reports that his presidency of the E.U. is in crisis following the Irish rejection of the treaty.

What does this mean? It means his secretive agenda (he was waiting until after the vote to release the agenda of his presidency because he knew if the Irish were better informed we would react badly) of tax harmonisaton and further centralising of decision making in europe would only have been possible if Lisbon had been passed.

Example 6: We are loosing our Commissioner?
Retort a: We have the same commisioner rights as any other country, including Germany and France.
Retort b: The commissioners are legally obliged not to show any bias to their own country anyway.

The commission is the only place legislation can be introduced in the E.U. It's a very undemocratic institution already, and would be very much less democratic we lose our only influence for a third of the time.

Example 7: I don't see like the idea of an EU superstate?
Retort a: So do you think the world should be run by the US and China? Or should we just become a US proxy?
Retort b: How about ideas such as co-operation and economies of scale, are you against them as well?

This is the nub of the issue. You appear to think a federalist E.U. is a good idea, while others do not want to hand over so much power to the E.U. and value their national sovergnity. Those that don't agree with you you label lunatics (by associating them with creationists)

People don't like the direction the E.U. is going. We don't want to be ruled by beurocrats in Brussles with hardly any influence in what they do. (our most powerful influence is our insistence in holding referendums on E.U. treaties, and we are seeing now just how little they respect the democratic will of the Irish people.)

Example 8: The EU is not democratic. Why aren't other countries having their say?
Every country elected representatives to negotiate that treaty for them.
Some countries have had a bad experience with referendums because they are a good way of creating misunderstandings and discontent. In Germany, Hitler used referendums to grow his power base for example.

That's a perfect example of goodwins law. "Referendums are evil, that;s what hitler did' The only 'Bad experience' the E.U. elites have had with referendums are that the people cant be trusted to accept their decrees. There have been a large number of E.U. treaties that have been passed in many nationstates by referendum. The people will vote for treaties that they are in favour of. It is totally undemocratic for nations to pass a treaty through their parliament that they know full well their people are opposed to. (the U.K., France, Netherlands all did exactly this)

Basically we have said no without offering one intelligble reason why or one constructive suggestion for a way forward. It just looks like we are not interested in the EU unless we are getting massive handouts. That treaty took 6 years to negotiate. There were millions of niggly points. Even whether to include the references to our Christian heritage. A compromise was reached between 27 elected governments. The EU is one of the few international organisations that has any concept of ethics, labour laws, the environment, the importance of science and it makes sense we work together. Everything that was a major issue for us, e.g. tax, we got our way. Now, we just look stupid and greedy and I ashamed of being Irish.

The tactics the No campaign used were very similar to creationism. Look at the complexity of something, create doubt and fear. Offer absolutely nothing better with any substance.

Very sad day. Either the EU project will stall or else move on without us.

Or the E.U. is like an organism that is evolving. Its getting bigger and bigger and more and more complex, but it's starting to get too big, and it's starting to exhaust its food supply and is less agile.

Bigger isn't always better. More integration isn't always better.

If every region in the world consolidated and consolidated with closer and closer cooperation, we'd ultimately see the emergence of 4 or 5 huge federations all with competing interests and with the very real risk of global conflicts on a scale we have never seen before.

The E.U. is a trading block, a way to increase cooperation. we don't need to become a superstate.
The bigger it gets the less democratic it has to be by definition

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Some of the reasons for No are more annoying than anything I have heard for creationism.

Much my thoughts too, having heard seven people I know mention their forehead-slappingly stupid reasons for voting "no".

btw, I've a thread going here in the EU forum about dumb reasons.

Here's my favourite, from yesterday afternoon, by somebody in Herbert Road with a white plastic board and a spraycan. The sign under the Lisbon poster is for a missing cat, btw:

robindch

Akrasia wrote: »

The people will vote for treaties that they are in favour of.

Yes, that's right, but that can only happen honestly when people take their responsibility to inform themselves fully about the topic at hand, and then vote (or abstain) based upon an accurate appreciation. That's democracy in action.

Tim's point, and I entirely agree with him, is that this did not happen in this election. Instead, a large portion of the electorate voted according to their thoughts on issues unrelated to the Treaty, and which in my experience frequently bordered on the delusional, at the behest of various organizations which, to say the very least, were less than honest.

Consequently, what we saw on Thursday was not the practice of democracy which I understand to proceed from the informed consent of the electorate, but an outcome which (if the IT poll ten days ago is accurate) was delivered through a mixture of ignorance and Karl-Rove-style manipulation of the electorate.

It's not nice and the comparison to creationism is apt.

Tim Robbins

Akrasia wrote: »

There is a very strong reason to believe that we were being deceived (not just by Irish politicians)

Do you think the US put a man on the moon? What about 9 / 11 did it really happen?

The coverage of Sarcozi has been very interesting post referendum with many reports that his presidency of the E.U. is in crisis following the Irish rejection of the treaty.

What coverage? Silly tabloid journalists? Where you voting for Sarcozi or a Treaty which took 6 years to negotiate between 27 countries?

The commission is the only place legislation can be introduced in the E.U. It's a very undemocratic institution already, and would be very much less democratic we lose our only influence for a third of the time.

No the commission proposes legislation that's all, the other strands ratify and enact it. Including our own Dail.
You really aren't very well informed.

This is the nub of the issue. You appear to think a federalist E.U. is a good idea, while others do not want to hand over so much power to the E.U. and value their national sovergnity. Those that don't agree with you you label lunatics (by associating them with creationists)

They just don't have any intelligent reasons. Simple as that.

People don't like the direction the E.U. is going. We don't want to be ruled by beurocrats in Brussles with hardly any influence in what they do. (our most powerful influence is our insistence in holding referendums on E.U. treaties, and we are seeing now just how little they respect the democratic will of the Irish people.)

We elect the EU parliament which has been getting increasing powers.
We elect the ministers which sit at the council of ministers meetings. OUr government, which we elect appoint our commisioner.

It is totally undemocratic for nations to pass a treaty through their parliament that they know full well their people are opposed to. (the U.K., France, Netherlands all did exactly this)

More stupidity. The parliament, and governments of 27 states were all democratically elected to negotiate that and every European treaty. It is too complicated to have referenda for every nation because the people are not involved directly in the negotations. This is for logistical reasons. You can't 500 million sit around a table and reach consensus. Therefore, it is up for each elected government to speak for its citizens. Ever here of the UN it works the same way. Do you think that should be scrapped because we have never had a referendum for it?

We only have referendums because our constituition was written in the 1930's before the concept the EU had even being thought about. IT actually makes no sense to give complicated legal documents to people to vote on who don't even understand the basics of the European politics.

What about the IPCC 4th report on climate change? Where was our referendum on that. If we have a referendum on a complicated legal document why not have one on a complicated scientific document? By your ridiculous logic there is a clear democratic deficit with respect to climate change.

The E.U. is a trading block, a way to increase cooperation. we don't need to become a superstate.
The bigger it gets the less democratic it has to be by definition

This is just rhetoric. You are just using a silly scare word : "superstate" without saying what exactly the problem is. Absolutely no logic.

Your arguments are no more intelligble than any thing I have heard from a creationist. There are gaps in the fossil record and evolution is only a theory.

Please go off and read some good books. The Oxford VSI to the European Union would be a good place to start.

Ireland has to return to the EU and give some way forward or else opt out.
We look absolutely stupid because we have no intelligent reason.

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

We only have referendums because our constituition was written in the 1930's before the concept the EU had even being thought about.

Not true. In what I think was an amendment to the 1987 ruling by the Supreme Court in case that Ray Crotty took against the government over the Single European Act, the Court recommended that all future EU Treaties would have to be approved by referendum in order to ensure their constitutionality.

CerebralCortex

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Exampe 1: I am not voing No to something I can't understand?
Retort 1.a:
Why don't you abstain if you can't understand?
Retort 1.b:
If you don't want to read a complicated treaty, read the refcom summary.

What if you weren't in a positiom to understand it and wanted to exercise you democratic rights.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Example 3: It's too complicated, it should be simplier.
Retort: Do you honestly expect a legal agreement between 27 countries which must be detailed, to be like a postman pat story?

Maybe it should be delivered in stages.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Example 4: I don't trust Irish politicians.
Retort a: Well then why are you voting against something which helps the EU not Irish politicians.
Retort b: What's the logical conclusion of that? Get rid of all Irish politicians?

Well it makes life difficult for them especially if you didn't vote for them in the general election.

I'm with you on every other example except the following

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Example 8: The EU is not democratic. Why aren't other countries having their say?
Every country elected representatives to negotiate that treaty for them.
Some countries have had a bad experience with referendums because they are a good way of creating misunderstandings and discontent. In Germany, Hitler used referendums to grow his power base for example.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Basically we have said no without offering one intelligble reason why or one constructive suggestion for a way forward. It just looks like we are not interested in the EU unless we are getting massive handouts. That treaty took 6 years to negotiate. There were millions of niggly points. Even whether to include the references to our Christian heritage. A compromise was reached between 27 elected governments. The EU is one of the few international organisations that has any concept of ethics, labour laws, the environment, the importance of science and it makes sense we work together. Everything that was a major issue for us, e.g. tax, we got our way. Now, we just look stupid and greedy and I ashamed of being Irish.

The tactics the No campaign used were very similar to creationism. Look at the complexity of something, create doubt and fear. Offer absolutely nothing better with any substance.

Very sad day. Either the EU project will stall or else move on without us.

In fairness a lot of fear has been created by the yes side too about its rejection, of course there shouldn't be this is a democracy.

Galvasean

Um.. why is this in A&A?

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

Not true. In what I think was an amendment to the 1987 ruling by the Supreme Court in case that Ray Crotty took against the government over the Single European Act, the Court recommended that all future EU Treaties would have to be approved by referendum in order to ensure their constitutionality.

The court ruled that way because it interpretated the constituition as such. That was my understanding, open to correction.

ZorbaTehZ

My personal favourite is "I'm voting no because we need to keep the politicians on their toes"

Akrasia wrote: »

That's a perfect example of goodwins law. "Referendums are evil, that;s what hitler did"

Reductio ad hitlerum

Galvasean wrote:

Um.. why is this in A&A?

+1

Tim Robbins

CerebralCortex wrote: »

What if you weren't in a positiom to understand it and wanted to exercise you democratic rights.

You shouldn't vote if you don't understand. Or else you should close your eyes and just tick a box.

Maybe it should be delivered in stages.

So you have to get 27 countries to agree to that. The other 26 say, why should it be delivered in stages? What's the logical reason? Ireland are you just trying to slow things down?

In fairness a lot of fear has been created by the yes side too about its rejection, of course there shouldn't be this is a democracy.

And that fear is valid. The Euro already devalued 1.7% on Friday. This will put more pressure onthe ECB. Do you have a morgage by any chance? Inflation is sky high in the Euro zone, already, now more pressure.

Basically, the Euro market is trying to compete with US, China, Brazil, Japan etc. 27 countries agree a way of reforming to speed up legislation and to operate more efficiently, instead of progressing that Ireland throws a spanner in the works for what? Again I repeat for what? We got everything we wanted at the negotiations? We have no logical reason or constructive suggestion for a better solution?

We are now in the position whereby the other 26 countries can go ahead and ratify this treaty. Where does that leave us? We have said no but can't even articulate an intelligent reason, so how do resolve something we can't even articulate.

They can technically move on without us. They'd be stupid not to try to do that. IF 26 countries agree a way forward and 1 country can't even articulate a reason why it doesn't agree, why should they wait around?

Now our electorate has created a mess for our own government to sort out. Instead of progressing with the program for government, we have to spend more time trying to find a resolution for this mess. Again for what? We already had consensual agreement with other member states and won the negotiations in key areas? What more do we want?

This is absolutely ridiculous.

Galvasean

CerebralCortex wrote: »

What if you weren't in a positiom to understand it and wanted to exercise you democratic rights.

Simple, spoil your vote on purpose.

PDN

Democracy + Uneducated People = Bad Decisions

I'm sure I'm being terribly politically incorrect, but I see little point in allowing people to vote on things when they lack the qualities necessary to make an informed and sensible decision.

For example, opinion polls consistently show that a majority of the UK population would vote for the restoration of capital punishment - but I think that MP's demonstrate good leadership when they refuse to enact the will of the people in this regard.

If people were unable to discern the lies that were told about the Lisbon Treaty then they obviously lack the qualifications to be included in the decision making process. Other governments recognised that fact.

Incidentally, I would also be opposed to the content of a school's science curriculum being determined by referendum.

CerebralCortex

Galvasean wrote: »

Simple, spoil your vote on purpose.

Don't believe in spoiling my vote. You don't really say much by doing that in my opinion.

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

Democracy + Uneducated People = Bad Decisions

I'm sure I'm being terribly politically incorrect, but I see little point in allowing people to vote on things when they lack the qualities necessary to make an informed and sensible decision.

For example, opinion polls consistently show that a majority of the UK population would vote for the restoration of capital punishment - but I think that MP's demonstrate good leadership when they refuse to enact the will of the people in this regard.

If people were unable to discern the lies that were told about the Lisbon Treaty then they obviously lack the qualifications to be included in the decision making process. Other governments recognised that fact.

Incidentally, I would also be opposed to the content of a school's science curriculum being determined by referendum.

Couldn't agree more. :eek:

While democracy is a fantastic idea, it isn't always so simple or practical to let people decide, especially when the people haven't got a clue what they are voting about.

Fanny Cradock

I admit that I was one of the uneducated masses with regards to this vote. I found that neither side made a particularly strong case for my vote. This meant that I was left with my general mistrust of all this political to guide my decision. So ignorance and mistrust where the cornerstones of my decision Somehow I think Europe will continue to trundle along.

As an aside, I have absolutely no idea what the views of creationists have to do with the Lisbon Treaty. Votes weren't necessarily decided by religious belief. I know atheists who voted no and Christian who voted yes.

JC 2K3

If you're going to liken the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty to Creationism, let me liken the Yes campaign to religious fear mongering.

Schuhart

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Example 3: It's too complicated, it should be simplier.
Retort: Do you honestly expect a legal agreement between 27 countries which must be detailed, to be like a postman pat story?

You will recall that the reason we had this turkey on our table was because an earlier, more coherent, document had failed to get a popular mandate from French and Dutch voters. The document was deliberately convoluted to make it unintelligible to voters.

I agree many may have had silly reasons for voting no. I didn't vote, as I was out of the country, but I probably would have voted yes for all the wrong reasons - basically if people all over Europe are willing to let their governments treat them with contempt like this, I don't see us as really being in a position to take leadership on bridging the gap between Brussels and the people. Signs on - we've voted no and its not as if Biffo is out there with a new vision for Europe.

But I think we need to grasp the whole picture. A shoddy treaty, thrown together so that governments could ignore their electorates, got voted down by Ireland. The No vote was particular high in counties with a high population of lonely farmers and nervous sheep. I don't have any particular shame about this shoddy enterprise coming to grief like this, as I think there is a technocratic elite wanting to further the European project without a mandate.

And they simply need to get that mandate. Whether they like it or not. (And its pretty clear, incidently, that its 'not'). Without it, they simply have no legitimacy.

Or would you rather we went back to the idea that them fellahs with a bit of education have far more of a clue than us, and they must know what they're talking about when they say its wrong to wear a condom.

Galvasean

PDN wrote: »

Democracy + Uneducated People = Bad Decisions

I'm sure I'm being terribly politically incorrect, but I see little point in allowing people to vote on things when they lack the qualities necessary to make an informed and sensible decision.

Democracy failed the day stupid people began to outnumber intelligent people, but grew just intelligent enough to wander into the voting booth.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Don't believe in spoiling my vote. You don't really say much by doing that in my opinion.

It makes a lot more sense than voting for something you don't understand. If everyone were to do that, we might as well pass referendums by the flip of a coin.
If you spoil your vote on purpose at least they know you were interested enough to vote, just couldn't decide what to vote for. If they got a million votes back saying 'Not enough information to make informed decision' they may rethink how to go about future referendums.

Galvasean

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As an aside, I have absolutely no idea what the views of creationists have to do with the Lisbon Treaty. Votes weren't necessarily decided by religious belief. I know atheists who voted no and Christian who voted yes.

Indeed. I'm still wondering why its in A&A.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

Democracy + Uneducated People = Bad Decisions

Ireland should be run by Moderators, who can hand out infractions and bans for stupidity. I'd start with infractions for everyone who voted no for a stupid reason (not that they'd have been allowed vote in the first place).

Galvasean wrote: »

Indeed. I'm still wondering why its in A&A.

Me too. Though I'm strangely reluctant to do anything about it.

Schuhart

PDN wrote: »

Democracy + Uneducated People = Bad Decisions

I'm sure I'm being terribly politically incorrect, but I see little point in allowing people to vote on things when they lack the qualities necessary to make an informed and sensible decision.

Should such people also be exempt from eternal damnation? I mean, if they lack the wherewithal to decide if they want more European integration, presumably they similarly can't be expected to decide which religion, if any, they should be following.

I suppose, alternatively, your argument might be that there is no potential conflict here as a) stupid people should not be allowed to vote in referenda and b)those same stupid people will be damned by God. Its just that seems to do away with the idea of free will having something to do with salvation as God has created folk incapable both of participating as responsible voters and participating as responsible believers.

I knew there had to be a religious angle to this thread.

Talliesin

As far as I can see the only connection is that the OP has Creationism, religious belief, and Lisbon scepticism together as three things that he disagrees with, and as such bearing some sort of relationship to each other.

This does not seem like very clear thinking to me.

I can just about see a connection with the way that people on all three sides ("three" because the No side contained a lot of far-right and a lot of far-left who had extremely different takes on why they were opposed) seemed to expect us to make a leap of faith.

At least Libertas went to the effort of making some sort of argument as to why people should vote no. They were largely bull****, but believing a lie isn't as dumb as voting as someone says when they've nothing better than "because I say so".

Tim Robbins

Schuhart wrote: »

The document was deliberately convoluted to make it unintelligible to voters.

I disagree. It was convulted because it's complicated agreement between 27 sovereign nations. Very few people would read anything at all about democracy, so naturally a list of amendments to the EU is going to be too much for them.

But I think we need to grasp the whole picture. A shoddy treaty, thrown together so that governments could ignore their electorates, got voted down by Ireland.

Thrown together, it was 6.5 years of negotiations of democratically elected governments.

The No vote was particular high in counties with a high population of lonely farmers and nervous sheep. I don't have any particular shame about this shoddy enterprise coming to grief like this, as I think there is a technocratic elite wanting to further the European project without a mandate.

I would imagine it was also high amongst people who don't read that much.

And they simply need to get that mandate. Whether they like it or not. (And its pretty clear, incidently, that its 'not'). Without it, they simply have no legitimacy.

The treaty was negotatiated for 27 countries by 27 soverign, democractically elected governments. That's a mandate.

If you insist of referendums of complicated legalise well then you must consistent and apply the same rules to the UN. Now could you tell me how many referendums there have been for that?

How about the WTO?

I don't know if you read any of my previous posts but it's actually a very difficult objective to reach agreement amongst 27 nations.
All nations have their caveats which must be negotiated. Now, if you insist it must have the backing the all the people of all countries well then how can ever envisaging that happening without having alll 500 million people in the negotiations.
Also you must be consisted and apply it to every international organisaion we participate in, including the EU.

Tim Robbins

Talliesin wrote: »

As far as I can see the only connection is that the OP has Creationism, religious belief, and Lisbon scepticism together as three things that he disagrees with, and as such bearing some sort of relationship to each other.

You can remove religious belief from that set. Religious belief is a personal choice which in many cases has had many positive effects for society and individuals even if it's not fundamentally true.

Creationism is absolute nonsense, so is No to Lisbon. The latter is far more annoying because it has thrown this state into a right mess.

I have a job and a morgage. I don't see creationism threathening either, sadly it's not the same for this No to Lisbon idiocy.

Right now, I am embarrased to be Irish. Embarrased to be from a nation that made it so clear that it's not interested in EU unless it's getting handouts and tries to disguise that behind silly arguments such as: it's too complicated.

We're supposed to be an educated society, we should be able to do better.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Democracy + Uneducated People = Bad Decisions

Agree but we're supposed to be educated. We've statistically a high percentage of people who go onto third level.

I think it's a case of:
Democracy + Greedy People = Bad Decisions.

The problem is people have become so obsessed with themselves, they have forgotten the concept of a world view.

Talliesin

Tim Robbins wrote: »

a nation that made it so clear that it's not interested in EU unless it's getting handouts and tries to disguise that behind silly arguments such as: it's too complicated.

So, you don't think there's anyone in the entire country, or indeed the entire EU, that believes the treaty isn't in the best interest of EU citizens? Not a single one?

Tim Robbins

Talliesin wrote: »

So, you don't think there's anyone in the entire country, or indeed the entire EU, that believes the treaty isn't in the best interest of EU citizens? Not a single one?

Of course they may believe it but they are incapable of articulating a logical argument. Hence the comparison to creationists.

OK-Cancel-Apply

I wonder what percentage of people voted 'no' primarily because of the religion (abortion) issue. Had a certain group of people put aside their religious beliefs, could we have seen a 'yes' result?

Galvasean

Talliesin wrote: »

So, you don't think there's anyone in the entire country, or indeed the entire EU, that believes the treaty isn't in the best interest of EU citizens? Not a single one?

For the record I voted 'No' and don't meet the criteria outlined in the OP.
Of course if someone disagrees with a referendum they must be ignorant because we know the treaty was nothing but sunshine and rainbows. :rolleyes:
If it were so clear cut which was the right decision there would be no need to vote on it.

JC 2K3

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Thrown together, it was 6.5 years of negotiations of democratically elected governments.

It was thrown together in less than a year following the democratic defeat of the EU Constitution in France and the Netherlands 2 years earlier. I'm sick and tired of hearing the "It's been worked on for 7 years and been democratically agreed upon by 27 Member States" line and the implied respectibility and credibility that goes with it. It's a total misrepresentation of its true reality.

Fanny Cradock

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

I wonder what percentage of people voted 'no' primarily because of the religion (abortion) issue. Had a certain group of people put aside their religious beliefs, could we have seen a 'yes' result?

Of course, not all religious people are against abortion, and not all irreligious people support it. I wouldn't have though that this one issue was the deciding factor.

Galvasean

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Of course, not all religious people are against abortion, and not all irreligious people support it.

Indeed, I'm a firm atheist but am against abortion (with the exception of provable cases where rape has occurred).

OK-Cancel-Apply

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Of course, not all religious people are against abortion, and not all irreligious people support it. I wouldn't have though that this one issue was the deciding factor.

Well, I just thought I'd raise the point, seeing as this is the A+A forum. It may not have been the ultimate deciding factor, but out of the 100,000 or so majority, I'd be willing to bet the a large chunk felt they had to vote 'no' because of the abortion issue.

Galvasean wrote: »

Indeed, I'm a firm atheist but am against abortion (with the exception of provable cases where rape has occurred).

Words I haven't seen often on the internet! I'd be intrigued to hear your secular anti-abortion viewpoint, but that of course would be another thread. TBH I never thought there were many anti-abortion secularists.

Fanny Cradock

Galvasean wrote: »

Indeed, I'm a firm atheist but am against abortion (with the exception of provable cases where rape has occurred).

Funnily, if I found myself in your position, I would think that my opinion would remain the same as it in now.

Galvasean

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

I'd be intrigued to hear your secular anti-abortion viewpoint, but that of course would be another thread. TBH I never thought there were many anti-abortion secularists.

And so you shall.

Tim Robbins

Galvasean wrote: »

For the record I voted 'No' and don't meet the criteria outlined in the OP.
Of course if someone disagrees with a referendum they must be ignorant because we know the treaty was nothing but sunshine and rainbows. :rolleyes:
If it were so clear cut which was the right decision there would be no need to vote on it.

Well they haven't articulated an intelligent reason for the no.
If you like to do that, please do...

Galvasean

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well they haven't articulated an intelligent reason for the no.
If you like to do that, please do...

Likewise all the 'Vote Yes' literature I received didn't articulate an intelligent reason to do so.
Perhaps you would like to do so?

Two of my gripes with the Treaty were the proposed reduction of Ireland's voting power (due to our small population) and also the fact that the Treaty can be changed without doing another referendum in Ireland.

Tim Robbins

JC 2K3 wrote: »

It was thrown together in less than a year following the democratic defeat of the EU Constitution in France and the Netherlands 2 years earlier. I'm sick and tired of hearing the "It's been worked on for 7 years and been democratically agreed upon by 27 Member States" line and the implied respectibility and credibility that goes with it. It's a total misrepresentation of its true reality.

Are you also tired of the UN? Tell me all the referenda there have been for that?

The need for a re-working of European Instituitions was in the treaty of Nice, 2001 and the Laeken declaration of December 2001 committed the EU to improving democracy, transparency and efficiency, and set out the process by which a constitution aiming to achieve these aims could be arrived at.

It has been a seven year process agreed by democractically elected governments. You have a right not to like it or accept it, but if you can't give an intelligent reason to move forward like I said it means one of the following:

1. Europe moves forward without us.
2. Europe doesn't move forward.

So you sit there and moan and whinge, but we're does that get us?

Galvasean

Tim Robbins wrote: »

So you sit there and moan and whinge, but we're does that get us?

It gets us on boards.ie in the A&A department. It seems a lot of the moaning and whinging is coming from the yes camp at the moment.

Tim Robbins

Galvasean wrote: »

Likewise all the 'Vote Yes' literature I received didn't articulate an intelligent reason to do so.
Perhaps you would like to do so?

HEre's a few:
1.
It creates certainty that in the Euro-zone we have an agreed form of governance. We don't have that know and the Euro has already dropped in value.

2. The EU is one of the only instituitions to promote ethical legislation. The treaty echos my values, Article 2 states:
"The EU is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a Society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail."

Article 3 (5) states: "In its relations with the wider world the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular, the rights of the child as well as the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter".

3. Promotes further means of getting legislation:
Article 8(b)4 states: "Not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may table the initiative of inviting the Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties".

Thus the Lisbon Treaty provides any citizen or group of citizens with an independent mechanism for placing an issue on the EU Agenda.

4.
Lisbon Fights Global Poverty

Article 188 (d) states that "Union development co-operation policy shall have as its primary objective the reduction and, in the long-term, the eradication of poverty".
In Article 188J a strong commitment is given to Humanitarian Aid "for the purpose of third countries which are victims of natural and man-made disasters".

5.
Lisbon Tackles Climate Change
The Lisbon Reform Treaty gives a legal basis for combating climate change for the first time. Thus the EU is taking on a leadership role in tackling the most serious environmental problem facing the world, namely, climate change.

Article 174 of the Treaty is amended to commit the EU to "Promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems and, in particular, combating climate change".

Two of my gripes with the Treaty were the proposed reduction of Ireland's voting power (due to our small population)

Where in the council or the parliament? Be more specific so I can give an answer.

and also the fact that the Treaty can be changed without doing another referendum in Ireland.

Well you must really hate the UN then.

iUseVi

Galvasean wrote: »

It gets us on boards.ie in the A&A department. It seems a lot of the moaning and whinging is coming from the yes camp at the moment.

They be fightin' words!

Tim Robbins

Galvasean wrote: »

It gets us on boards.ie in the A&A department. It seems a lot of the moaning and whinging is coming from the yes camp at the moment.

Like I said I have a morgage and I have a job. So do lots of Irish people. Now the state has got itself into a mess and has no constructive solution or way forward.

Here was another good reason for Lisbon:

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_gov.html wrote:

At present, national parliaments are not directly involved in EU decision making. If the Treaty enters into force then national parliaments – in Ireland’s case, the Dáil and Seanad - will have 8 weeks after the publication of an EU legislative proposal to vet that proposal and offer an opinion.

If a number of national parliaments object to the proposal it must be reviewed. Each national parliament has two votes; the Dáil and Seanad have one vote each. The review must take place if one third of the national parliaments request this. In the case of judicial co-operation in criminal matters and police co-operation, a quarter of the national parliaments would be able to require a review. The Treaty would also give national parliaments a specific role in relation to proposed changes to the Treaties.

Galvasean

Tim, points 2 and 4 seem a bit superfluous if you ask me.
Do we not already have respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities?
Ireland already gives out much foreign aid. Do we really need the Treaty for these things?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Where in the council or the parliament? Be more specific so I can give an answer.

The council.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well you must really hate the UN then.

Aside from the point. Whats the point in voting for a treaty you agree with only for them to change it soon after without your consent?

Tim Robbins

Galvasean wrote: »

Tim, points 2 and 4 seem a bit superfluous if you ask me.
Do we not already have respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities?
Ireland already gives out much foreign aid. Do we really need the Treaty for these things?

Ireland signed up to give 0.7 of its GNP but did not fulfill it. Yes we do need to be told and reminded about our values.

The council.

According to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union
Our vote in the council goes from 0.9 to 2.1.

Aside from the point. Whats the point in voting for a treaty you agree with only for them to change it soon after without your consent?

Well you must specify what change you are talking about?
How about your quote the exact part of the treaty you are taling about.
We kept our veto in key areas.

Galvasean

Tim Robbins wrote: »

According to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union
Our vote in the council goes from 0.9 to 2.1.

Lots of the info. on that page is out of date. I can't actually spot the part where it says our council vote goes due to Lisbon. The chart on the right hand side presents such figures but is not in relation to the Lisbon treaty as far as I can tell.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

How about your quote the exact part of the treaty you are taling about.

Sorry, but I'm really not in the mood for trawling through the awkward Lisbon Treaty to satisfy your efforts to convince me I voted wrongly. If you wanted to discuss the treaty in such detail perhaps you could have consulted one of the many threads about it elsewhere on boards.ie I'm sure the posters there will provide you with better debate and detail than I am willing to go in to.

Tim Robbins

Galvasean wrote: »

Lots of the info. on that page is out of date. I can't actually spot the part where it says our council vote goes due to Lisbon. The chart on the right hand side presents such figures but is not in relation to the Lisbon treaty as far as I can tell.


Sorry, but I'm really not in the mood for trawling through the awkward Lisbon Treaty to satisfy your efforts to convince me I voted wrongly. If you wanted to discuss the treaty in such detail perhaps you could have consulted one of the many threads about it elsewhere on boards.ie I'm sure the posters there will provide you with better debate and detail than I am willing to go in to.

Well if you have to know I deliberately avoided such debate just like I deliberately avoid the creationist thread. Because I think the No side are just as insular, stubborn and stupid as creationists.

I really am very worried about where our state will now go and what will happen.

JC 2K3

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well if you have to know I deliberately avoided such debate just like I deliberately avoid the creationist thread. Because I think the No side are just as insular, stubborn and stupid as creationists.

Oh ffs, would you ever read your own posts and get down off that pedestal.

Galvasean

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well if you have to know I deliberately avoided such debate

Avoid such debate? You started a thread mate.

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think the No side are just as insular, stubborn and stupid as creationists.

That's a terribe thing to say about anyone.