No Vote = Worthless? No Voters = Stupid?

dlofnep

That's the general consensus from the posts I've seen and the news stories I've read and I'm absolutely appalled by it. I'll break down the two separately.

Firstly, all of us who went out of our way to get out there and use our free voice to vote are not having our vote respected by Europe.

Wolfgang Schäuble, the German interior minister stated

"Of course we have to take the Irish referendum seriously," "But a few million Irish cannot decide on behalf of 495 million Europeans."

I am disgusted by this comment. Firstly, YES we can. Because to pass this treaty requires unanimity and it does NOT have it. Secondly, what Mr. Schäuble really means is that he is not happy that the democratic outcome in Ireland and that just over a million people have decided the outcome of what the political elite wanted, and NOT want Europeans wanted.

Infact, I think the fact that they are trying to label this as what "Europeans" wanted is an absolute farce, and a blatant lie. If they really wanted to see what Europeans wanted, they would of encouraged each member state to have a public referendum and then they would see what Europeans wanted, and I assure you - Ireland being one of the more EU-friendly countries would of not being the only member state to have put this treaty where it rightfully belongs - on a dusty shelf right next to Mein Kampf.

My second point I would like to address is how the bitter and corn YES campaigners have dealt with this resounding win for democracy within Europe and resounding defeat for political big-wigs.

Apparently, all those who voted no - voted no on a pack of lies and that we're obviously all too stupid to make up our own minds on Europe. People voted no for a wealth of reasons - and the majority from which I spoke to while I walked the 100's of streets of Waterford while campaigning myself were valid and mature. "Those who voted no are anti-european and are not greatful for what the EU has given us!" It's these type of arguments that are used by the war-mongers in Southern USA to try and coerce support for an illegal war on Iraq. I've heard all the arguments before. "If you don't support our troops, you're anti-american!" "If you don't support the Lisbon Treaty, you're anti-european!"

We are DAMN greatful of the EU, but we still have every right to control our own future. A country for the people and by the people.

I am utterly disgusted with some of the posters on here who have already labeled the NO side as uneducated. Could we not say the same about the YES campaign, who were lead - not on the pros of the treaty, but rather on a few catchphrases and on FAITH that their local TD was wise and all-knowing? A little bit of subjectivity here would go a long way.

You see, all these absolutely illogical attacks on the NO voters can all be applied to the YES voters. So irregardless, when you break it down - the NO campaign still outvoted you by 110,000 people. That's the population of my city twice-over.

I had already created a thread asking you guys to deal with the greater voice of Ireland, but apparently you cannot. There is not a hint of maturity or respect for real democracy between the lot of you. Europe also cannot deal with the fact that Ireland, France and Holland have already spat in the face of this centralized methodology for running the EU. If the people of the EU are not pleased with this treaty, then stop trying to force another referendum (which I have no doubt this Government wants us to do) and RESPECT the right of our people and the RIGHT of democracy. Give the PEOPLE a chance to have their say!

If Europe and our Government tries to force a YES vote from us without severely altering this document - then it will be an insult to the Irish people, the people of Europe and democracy.

We deserve better. Democracy starts with the people, and not from the top-down dictating to the people how things are going to happen. I've already seen the future of Europe and it's left a bad taste in my mouth. All conspiracy theories aside, George Orwell's 1984 is now more appropriate than it has ever been.

So lads, there you have it. Even though we went out in our 100,000's to vote no - it doesn't matter. Because Europe still want to press on, despite polls across Europe and the result in our own referendum telling them that we are not happy with it. If they push another referendum, then I will campaign twice as hard to ensure power is restored to the people. Our voice will be heard again, whether they like it or not. I will NOT be bullied into a vote.

John.

Mr.Nice Guy

I agree with you 100%. I have been following the rejections of the EU constitution and the evolution of the 'Lisbon Treaty' since 2005 and feel I know enough about this Treaty. I voted No following numerous debates with people who were going to vote Yes (some offered good cases, others offered woeful cases) however I viewed the facts and voted no.

It saddens me to see the rubbish being spouted that those who voted No were unaware of the Treaty. Such claims could be made by both sides anyway.

The vote has been made and as Mr Gilmore of the Labour Party has stated, it ought to be respected and there should be no more votes on this Treaty.

You will no doubt be on the receiving end of a tirade of abuse however (not to mention Mr Rolleyes).

dlofnep

Let them, but could they honestly say that Ireland would be the only one to reject this treaty if all member states had a public referendum? They would be lieing to themselves if they did. And the fact that Europe is not ready or willing to listen to the people is motive enough for me to vote no. When the people's voices become muted, then democracy fades along with it.

Mr.Nice Guy

dlofnep wrote: »

Let them, but could they honestly say that Ireland would be the only one to reject this treaty if all member states had a public referendum? They would be lieing to themselves if they did. And the fact that Europe is not ready or willing to listen to the people is motive enough for me to vote no. When the people's voices become muted, then democracy fades along with it.

Agreed. David Cameron got it right (not often I say that!) when he said if the British public were given a vote on the matter they'd put the final nail in its coffin. That is the cold hard reality and everyone knows it.

mike65

The tenor is true enough, regardless of which way you voted (and even if you did not vote/could not vote) the rection of our presumed betters has been informed by the worst instinct - the "How dare they?" attitude.

They dared because they were allowed to, there is no doubt that if every state had a free vote in thier national Parliaments never mind of the people this treaty would be voted down by several member countries. Of course high minded talk about democracy dries up when the result is "wrong" which is why every time there is a Treaty the EU fears a referendum being held.

Mike.

marco_polo

The bitter comments from certain european leaders have been regrettable, but we should not let them tarnish our view of the EU too much. Although a yes supporter I also found them insulting, I think they were born out of more out of frustration rather than real intent and I expect a much more concillatory tone next week.

The Brittish government have clearly stated that while they are continuing to ratify the Treaty it is meaningless unless Ireland come on board.

Why are ye worrying about the comments of other EU leaders?
We have no say in what they do and they will have to face their electorate who will be the arbitrators of whether they are doing right or wrong in their own countries.

Apparently, all those who voted no - voted no on a pack of lies and that we're obviously all too stupid to make up our own minds on Europe. People voted no for a wealth of reasons - and the majority from which I spoke to while I walked the 100's of streets of Waterford while campaigning myself were valid and mature. "Those who voted no are anti-european and are not greatful for what the EU has given us!" It's these type of arguments that are used by the war-mongers in Southern USA to try and coerce support for an illegal war on Iraq. I've heard all the arguments before. "If you don't support our troops, you're anti-american!" "If you don't support the Lisbon Treaty, you're anti-european!"

Ah now come on.that biddy that gave me the Cóir leaflet outside the church wasn't anti European.She was just anti abortion,anti prostitution and anti hard drugs.
I tried to explain to her that these things were all legal in Holland- a country that voted no to the constitution but she wouldn't listen...

You see, all these absolutely illogical attacks on the NO voters can all be applied to the YES voters.

I doubt many people on the yes side though thought their vote yes was going to bring in abortion,prostitution and hard drugs though..

dlofnep

Deleted User wrote: »

I tried to explain to her that these things were all legal in Holland- a country that voted no to the constitution but she wouldn't listen...I doubt many people on the yes side though thought their vote yes was going to bring in abortion,prostitution and hard drugs though..

This is exactly what I was talking about. I spoke to 100's of people in the streets, and not one of them mentioned any of that nonsense.

The people I spoke to had legitimate issues with the treaty, as much as the yes side are uncomfortable with it, unfortunately it's the truth. I have no doubt a few were swindled by these groups, no more than those swindled by the yes campaign. But the general NO voters had legitimate concerns with the treaty and that is why they voted no.

VoidStarNull

Personnally I'm gobsmacked that NO voters seem to think that Ireland's vote should determine the final outcome for the whole of Europe.

What would be democratic about that?

It's a fact that the current ground-rules will prevent the treaty coming into force without Ireland's ratification. Some politicians in Europe are saying that THIS situation is not democratic. Should our view trump theirs because we had a referendum and they didn't? The fact is that many countries do not have a tradition of referenda, so they will find this view incomprehensible.

dlofnep

dlofnep wrote: »

This is exactly what I was talking about. I spoke to 100's of people in the streets, and not one of them mentioned any of that nonsense.

It's not nonsense you know,it's a core of society that very much exists and was very much motivated.

The people I spoke to had legitimate issues with the treaty, as much as the yes side are uncomfortable with it, unfortunately it's the truth. I have no doubt a few were swindled by these groups, no more than those swindled by the yes campaign. But the general NO voters had legitimate concerns with the treaty and that is why they voted no.

Your own Mary Lou was asked on Saturday View what the Taoiseach should go back to Brussels and ask for.
She said , a guaranteed commissioner and something more concrete on neutrality.
Thats all she said.
SF campaigned for a better deal.
So the impression given was give us a little bit more than what we have with the body of Lisbon intact.
I don't see what the fuss is, as thats probably what is going to happen if cards are played well I'm doubtfull as to getting a permanent commissioner though or what can be done there as there are 26 other countries with the begging bowl.

As for my objections to Cóir,I think religion and politics are a bad mix.

Roxanne

OP I agree 100%. Thank you for putting all those points across in such an articulate way.

I say let them put it to the rest of the European people and then we will see. A simple yes to Lisbon or no to Lisbon and then see what the result is. But oh no they won't do that will they, wonder why??, They know that it is highly likely that in a lot of countries they will get the same answer as the Irish people have given, as indeed have the French and the Dutch,

I can see another referendum being held here. Our government is saying little at the moment, they are simply letting the lackies in Europe do all the talking and scaremongering, hoping we'll all get scared and be bullied into voting yes next time. Roll on Lisbon part 2

dlofnep

Black Briar - I agree religion and politics are a bad mix. As far as Mary Lou goes, I'm sure she has alot more to request - but only touched on one or two points. She's hardly going to lay out everything she wants changed within the EU to one question. It's irrelevant. Let's try stick to the topic at hand instead of turning this into a tit for tat party war. I left party names out for a reason.

VoidStarNull wrote: »

Personnally I'm gobsmacked that NO voters seem to think that Ireland's vote should determine the final outcome for the whole of Europe.

What would be democratic about that?

The EU required that all member states ratify it. All have not. That is the democracy which they created, and now it's fell back in their faces. They will have to live with it. You've obviously missed my most important point - which is, if the people of Europe had a voice on this treaty, Ireland being one of the more countries warm to the idea of the EU within Europe - would NOT be the only one to reject this abomination of a text.

bug

To be honest, I'm totally weirded out by this week in politics. It's the twilight zone.

Every No voter I asked, and granted - I'm not the red sea poll, but still, every one had a fairly valid reason got to do with something they'd heard or maybe even read themselves about the actual treaty.

I asked people why they voted yes, and the most common answer I got was for further integration and/or economic prosperity. Which is fine. But it reminds me of the "vote yes for jobs" campaign on Nice.

Now it seems to me that it was really the yes side who had no idea what the real content of the treaty was.

Apart from the few boardsie's that really seem to know their stuff inside out and backwards, does anyone else feel that the No side were and are being slightly victimised with regards their intelligence?

I am a No voter so maybe I am biased? But this is scary stuff.

Also, it's really weirded me out at the idea that we could possibly hold this again. I mean- I don't want Fianna Fail in power personally.
So the next time everyone votes them in, if, insert higher power here, tells us that they are the wrong choice too, can we hold the general elections again?

This is the world gone mad.

aliqueenb

honestly i do not think it is democracy if less than 100,000 peope ruin the chances of europe moving forward and becoming as powerful as america

dlofnep

aliqueenb wrote: »

honestly i do not think it is democracy if less than 100,000 peope ruin the chances of europe moving forward and becoming as powerful as america

The last thing this world needs is another United States of America, I assure you. Who's to say the Eu and the US will be on good terms in 50 years? The world changes quickly. 60 odd years ago, Germany was trying to slaughter everyone in Europe - Today they are one of the leading nations within the EU and an ally to us. One of many examples.

dlofnep

dlofnep wrote: »

Black Briar - I agree religion and politics are a bad mix. As far as Mary Lou goes, I'm sure she has alot more to request - but only touched on one or two points. She's hardly going to lay out everything she wants changed within the EU to one question. It's irrelevant. Let's try stick to the topic at hand instead of turning this into a tit for tat party war. I left party names out for a reason.

dlofnep,I've the utmost respect for your postings since I've came across them.I'm just uber critical of points that have counterpoints thats all and am very interested in see'ing views expressed and where they go
Sometimes that can be unpopular but it makes for good debate.
One sided discussions are no good.

Mary Lou was asked several times on that programmme for solutions(she had a fair time to speak) and they were sparse-listen to it,I think mike65 posted a link in a thread regarding Gay Mitchells rant on the same programme.

The EU required that all member states ratify it. All have not. That is the democracy which they created, and now it's fell back in their faces. They will have to live with it. You've obviously missed my most important point - which is, if the people of Europe had a voice on this treaty, Ireland being one of the more countries warm to the idea of the EU within Europe - would NOT be the only one to reject this abomination of a text.

Again,Mary Lou didn't think it was an abomination of a text.Reading it my self even taking on the "no spectacles" here,there seems to be some things that are more objectionable than others on this.

I'm not convinced at all by this constant mantra that other countries didn't get a referendum on it.If it turns out bad,they'll just throw out their government.
France I understand from scofflaw threw it out for many reasons unrelated to the constitution similar to what appears to have happened here.

What did France do then when it was cleaned a bit? Yup they voted in a right wing government that was more openly pro lisbon than ever and who was committed to implimenting it.

Scofflaw

You guys still victimising yourselves?

unsurprised,
Scofflaw

dlofnep

Black Briar, thanks for your maturity. In regards to Mary Lou, drop her a letter and ask her for a concise explanation for her reasons on rejecting the text. From reading SF texts, I assure you as a party - SF rejects the text on a much broader range of issues, including workers rights. The commissioner appeared to be low down in the list from talking in meetings and attending public meetings.

Scofflaw, you've been mature and debated well up until now. That sort of comment does you no justice.

bug

Scofflaw wrote: »

You guys still victimising yourselves?

unsurprised,
Scofflaw

well, you know, you keep calling people stupid enough, maybe they start to believe it.

woo-hoo, grounds for another referendum!

yours,
sarcastically,
bug.

Scofflaw

dlofnep wrote: »

Black Briar, thanks for your maturity. In regards to Mary Lou, drop her a letter and ask her for a concise explanation for her reasons on rejecting the text. From reading SF texts, I assure you as a party - SF rejects the text on a much broader range of issues, including workers rights. The commissioner appeared to be low down in the list from talking in meetings and attending public meetings.

Scofflaw, you've been mature and debated well up until now. That sort of comment does you no justice.

Well, the continued whinging eventually grates. You won - what are you complaining about now?

seriously,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

I believe that a large number of No voters had very real and legitimate concerns about aspects of the treaty. I think that the Yes supporters (including me) are understandably a bit frustrated that much of the debating time was spent debunking misinformation spread by groups such as Coir and Libertas. The real shame is that not enough time was spent on the core issues as a result.

I also think, while conceeding that some on the Yes side voted the way the party told them, that high proportion of voters voted no on the basis of issues that had nothing to do with the treaty.

If there had been real and proper debate on the real issues and the No camp still won the referendum, at least we would have a better idea of where we could go forward from here, now here is nothing but absolute chaos.

dlofnep

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, the continued whinging eventually grates. You won - what are you complaining about now?

seriously,
Scofflaw

Did you read my original post? I outlined what I needed to say. It would be redundant to repeat them again. You appear upset and bitter. I'm sorry if you're upset with the result. I'm not here to rub it in your face, I am addressing my concerns on the aftermath of the result.

dlofnep

dlofnep wrote: »

Scofflaw, you've been mature and debated well up until now. That sort of comment does you no justice.

I think it's probably frustration and land sakes he's probably entitled to a lot of that at this stage

Personally I can see your reasoning behind this thread but I'd put it to you that the vociferousness of the YES people navel gazing at this result is a function of their passion in what they believe in too.

At the end of the day,it's about time that they as a group realised that passion [albeit visible here] was lacking in the real world outside and it's passion that carries a lot of weight on a canvass as you should know.

I'm not a political activist,I don't wish to become one,but I do have a big interest in politics as a topic so this is a good exploration zone.
Thats all it is though folks

Scofflaw

dlofnep wrote: »

Did you read my original post? I outlined what I needed to say. It would be redundant to repeat them again. You appear upset and bitter. I'm sorry if you're upset with the result. I'm not here to rub it in your face, I am addressing my concerns on the aftermath of the result.

I'm actually quite ambivalent about the result, as I said on Friday. I'm not ambivalent about the ongoing chorus of "help, help, we're being oppressed".

There have been some absolutely unworthy comments by senior politicians in the wake of the result. Those comments reflect very poorly on those people, but are irrelevant until we know what will actually happen, and complaining that they constitute proof of the "undemocratic nature of the EU" is hysterical rhetoric of a very poor kind. The debate was quite muddied by that kind of rhetoric - since that debate has been settled, I would prefer not to see it continue.

I apologise if you feel that's out of line, but really this kind of thing is not a contribution to useful discussion of the position we have voted ourselves into. It's not aimed particularly at you - nor have I ever claimed that No voters were stupid, or that a No vote is worthless.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Kama

Given that a principal argument on the No side was that Lisbon was a technocratic recapitulation, a deconsitutionalised Constitution, deliberately constructed to attempt to evade the style of referendum it recently failed, hearing comments such as that quoted by the OP would only reinforce the perception of a political class whose 'respect' appears contemptuous, who will sidestep their own rules when it suits them, yet lack the diplomacy to 'dún do bheal' in their moments of pride or pique.

As a symptom of that (perceived) mentality, such remarks remain germane to the as-yet-unsettled debate, rather than irrelevant.
There are no shortage of such quotes, either prior or post Lisbon; to my mind, they were a significant factor for the No vote.

Perhaps Barroso, Sarkozy et al should, in Brechtian form, dissolve the Irish people and elect another?

Scofflaw

Kama wrote: »

Given that a principle argument on the No side was that Lisbon was a technocratic recapitulation, a deconsitutionalised Constitution, deliberately constructed to atempt to evade the style of referendum it recently failed, hearing comments such as that quoted by the OP would only reinforce the perception of political class whose 'respect' appears contemptuous, who will sidestep their own rules when it suits them, yet lack the diplomacy to 'dún do bheal' in their moments of pride or pique.
There are no shortage of such quotes, either prior or post Lisbon; to my mind, they were a significant factor for the No vote.

Perhaps Barroso, Sarkozy et al should, in Brechtian form, dissolve the Irish people and elect another?

Indeed - perhaps Croatia. However, you have reminded me that I intended to post up the constitutional ratification methods for the EU countries.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

Kama wrote: »

Given that a principle argument on the No side was that Lisbon was a technocratic recapitulation, a deconsitutionalised Constitution, deliberately constructed to atempt to evade the style of referendum it recently failed, hearing comments such as that quoted by the OP would only reinforce the perception of political class whose 'respect' appears contemptuous, who will sidestep their own rules when it suits them, yet lack the diplomacy to 'dún do bheal' in their moments of pride or pique.
There are no shortage of such quotes, either prior or post Lisbon; to my mind, they were a significant factor for the No vote.

Perhaps Barroso, Sarkozy et al should, in Brechtian form, dissolve the Irish people and elect another?

While I don't believe the Treaty is truely a document with any devious or hidden agenda, I it is a fair point to note that certain leaders clearly want it passed with as little effort as possible. People are understandably even more suspicious and wary after recent comments and it has made the task of finding any workable solution ten times more difficult.

Scofflaw

marco_polo wrote: »

While I don't believe the Treaty is truely a document with any devious or hidden agenda, I it is a fair point to note that certain leaders clearly want it passed with as little effort as possible. People are understandably even more suspicious and wary after recent comments and it has made the task of finding any workable solution ten times more difficult.

That I certainly agree with - in both parts.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

dlofnep wrote: »

But the general NO voters had legitimate concerns with the treaty and that is why they voted no.

No offence but how the **** do you know that? That's as groundless as someone stating the every single No voter voted because they thought that the Lisbon treaty would require us to send 12 virgins to Frankfurt each year for ritual sacrifice at the foot of Trichet's throne.


Yes the No side has been unfairly painted as a bunch of loons by the media focusing on every soundbyte they can grab of some person who voted No because it would open the door to Chinese invasion or something equally inane but to unequivocally state that the general No voter had legitimate concerns is just being silly. If we as a people knew they had legitimate concerns this would suggest that we had some inkling of what these legitimate concerns were and this would suggest some form of game plan for amendments to Lisbon that the Irish people would be happy with. You know, pretty much the opposite of what the situation is at the moment..

dlofnep

nesf wrote: »

No offence but how the **** do you know that? That's as groundless as someone stating the every single No voter voted because they thought that the Lisbon treaty would require us to send 12 virgins to Frankfurt each year for ritual sacrifice at the foot of Trichet's throne.

You appear upset.

I spoke to scores of people on the street, going from door to door. I attending public meetings and functions, where the average person weighed in their concerns. Who did you speak with?

So no, it's not groundless. It's based on the large portion of average, everyday people I spoke to and the feedback they gave to me as why they were voting no. I look at who I spoke to and came to the conclusion that the vast majority of them were sensical and then look at that in a bigger picture.

So whatever way you want to justify the NO campaign winning, it doesn't matter - because the NO campaign won, and the vast majority of people who voted NO had legitimate concerns and those who didn't, voted no based on a lack of clarity on the text. I don't remember speaking to one person who had outlandish views on a no vote, bar some drunk guy in a pub.

Scofflaw

dlofnep wrote: »

You appear upset.

I spoke to scores of people on the street, going from door to door. I attending public meetings and functions, where the average person weighed in their concerns. Who did you speak with?

So no, it's not groundless. It's based on the large portion of average, everyday people I spoke to and the feedback they gave to me as why they were voting no. I look at who I spoke to and came to the conclusion that the vast majority of them were sensical and then look at that in a bigger picture.

So whatever way you want to justify the NO campaign winning, it doesn't matter - because the NO campaign won, and the vast majority of people who voted NO had legitimate concerns and those who didn't, voted no based on a lack of clarity on the text. I don't remember speaking to one person who had outlandish views on a no vote, bar some drunk guy in a pub.

Ah - that's disappointing. The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.

disappointed,
Scofflaw