No Vote = Worthless? No Voters = Stupid?

seamus

nesf wrote: »

If we as a people knew they had legitimate concerns this would suggest that we had some inkling of what these legitimate concerns were

That's pretty much it.

I'm a little sick of participating in these at this point , but there were only three reasons I heard for voting "no" that had any merit:

1. "Europe hasn't been good to me, why would I want further integration?" - a valid point for some farmers, fisherman and other primary industries.

2. "I'm worried that Europe is becoming an authoritarian superstate". Regardless of how much I disagree with this statement, I cannot prove that this will never happen.

3. "I want Ireland to separate from the EU".

However, from what I saw, these were in an extreme minority. The bulk of the reasons that people gave were from a wide spectrum consisting of specific non-issues such as abortion, conscription and neutrality, as well non-specific non-issues such as, "We can get a better deal", "I haven't been told what's in the treaty", and of course, "I don't trust the Government".

What the "Yes" side see as the problem is that the "No" side have yet to provide any concrete concerns - things that they want changed in regards to the Lisbon treaty. "Go get us a better deal", is not sufficient and, "Get us back our commissioner" is absurd.
At least with Nice, the "No" side had a clear issue - neutrality. The Government were able to alter the amendment to clear up that concern and the treaty was accepted by the people.

BlitzKrieg

dlofnep wrote: »

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.

General consensus I have seen from posts and news stories after the referendum is mostly people unsure where we go from now. With the exception of one abusive thread *which even posters from the yes side opposed* I have found most threads to be an attempt to get a grasp on what we are going to do now.

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.

Two issues,

one and this is my personal gripe, why do you insist on treating europe as some single political entity?

secondly, your vote has been respected, no one has outright stated that the irish vote will be ignored, they are having a meeting with our government this week to discuss the irish vote. Yes ministers have put forward suggestions on policies they could follow, going from a two speed europe (which Britain has said it will oppose) to one state saying its considering not ratifying the treaty (Czech) to the French who want to push ahead.

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.

I must comment that alot of the threads on comments by ministers from different states have been very unfair, you are seeing malice and evil motives where there are none. I look at that comment and I see *Yes we accept the Irish Referendum, but we (as in Germany) are still commited to the Lisbon treaty* I dont see whats wrong with a comment like that? What do you expect them to say?

I find that a link someone posted in another thread to a interview on ireland.com about how people are more upset and angry with the politicians then the actual policies to ring very true with this thread,

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.

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!"

Again I personnally had no issues with either side during the campaign on the streets, I discussed issues with no voters, we didnt agree on some issues but things were civil.

i never used an "anti-european" argument once either here on boards or in person, if you have doubts you can search my post history.

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.

Debating from a purely Boards.ie stance, the number of Yes campaigners on here that were voting based on FAITH of their local TD was tiny, in fact I think I saw only one, and even that was on faith that all the political parties (bar Sinn Fein) were in agreement.

You'll find that those who put their faith in a local TD would have no reason to step foot in a politics forum, because well they have faith in their TD so they feel they dont need to.

The number of posters on the NO side who failed to successfully debate on the issues within the treaty on the other hand was quite substantial, this I think is the crux of where the notion that some people feel "the yes side think we are all stupid" is coming from, posters like Sink, Scafflow, Myself and Black Briar have debated again and again and with the exception of Johnnyq the debate from the No side was substantially weak on technical details of the treaty and of the Union. Thats not to say you or any poster is stupid.

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.

The Yes side has accepted you've won, we want to move onto what now?

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.

Now its my turn.

No voters.

Stop crying foul (despite you winning) and get to work!

The referendum is over, now we must discuss the future.

Look at the forum right now over 2/3rds of the post is whinging and whining, the constructive threads have been pushed away down the line and threads about *donegal* and forgien minister says bad things* and *oh woe is us they will force a 2nd referendum on us* make up the front page.

This is not constructive, this is not politics, its some bizarre bubble of after hours that needs to be popped now.

Give us threads on what should be changed, how it should be changed, be practical taking into account the needs of other states, the role of the EU.

the problem with a no vote is not that its useless its that its not constructive (a yes vote is only marginally more) Brian Cowen has gone on air to say he doesnt know what Ireland wants because there such a wealth of issues that influenced the No vote that we dont know where to go from here.

you see change the treaty, others say get rid of the treay, others say get rid of the EU, lets keep this status quo, get rid of immigrants, others say get referendums in every state. These are all contridicting each other and some of them require huge changes to the structure of the EU others require giving the EU more power, others less power.

Do we actually need to address the treaty, or do we need to address the referendum process.

You see the list of issues influencing a no vote is endless and that puts the EU, the Irish government and us in a bit of a pickle.

So stop complaining and start helping out where go from here.

thecaptain

Most people dont want to go any further with this European scam.

We are sick of the fat cats ruling our lives.

What is all this about adapting the treaty, get out of Europe altogeather.

Another soviet union in the making, end the police state and the eradication of human freedoms

Retribution

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

I admire dreamers that think Europe will be strong like US. There is no chance for creating strong economy based on LARGE social privileges. Look at fast growing middle east economic Empires. Only low taxes + minimal bureaucracy can provide economic growth.. and what we can see in EU? Exactly oposite conditions.. Democracy itself is stupid but idea of creating Soviet - European - Union is much worst. It cant succeed. History gives us a lot of perfect examples. So why we are wasting time for creation of ineffective composition instead of looking for better solutions?


@topic
Yours NO in referendum i belive will force UE to contrive something which will cut off people from their right to vote.. We all know that France could blast Lisbon in referendum more badly than you did. Thats why they were push away from the "democracy". You should be proud you got the chance to say your opinion. Its not important that this will be ignored by eurocrats it will be remembered by people who envy you

Mr. Presentable

The real problem here is that we had a referendum. Did any one else? Some things are best left to our elected representatives - that's why we elect them, to make decisions like this on our behalf.

BlitzKrieg

thecaptain wrote: »

Most people dont want to go any further with this European scam.

We are sick of the fat cats ruling our lives.

What is all this about adapting the treaty, get out of Europe altogeather.

Another soviet union in the making, end the police state and the eradication of human freedoms

thank you for proving my point.

What good is a no vote if the reasons for voting no cant co-exist.

You call the EU a *soviet union police state*

while I can go quote numerous posters that voted no because its all about *big business and privatization*

I genuinely believe (as I have already posted in two constrructive threads) that the issue could be with the referendum system, that it needs to be addressed to represent the issues within the treaty then just a wall of noise.

mewso

thecaptain wrote: »

Most people dont want to go any further with this European scam.

We are sick of the fat cats ruling our lives.

What is all this about adapting the treaty, get out of Europe altogeather.

Another soviet union in the making, end the police state and the eradication of human freedoms

A great post asking for some constructive contriibutions and this is the first post after it. Since the Lizard men are in charge in Europe then we are doomed anyway methinks. They will surely use their mind rays to force a yes vote next time.

I would like to know exactly what these legitimate NO voters considered wrong with this Treaty and as BlitzKreig has said constructive suggestions on what needs to be changed. Lay out some specifics. Generalisations like getting farmers a better deal, protecting the working man etc. can't wash now.

I don't think the NO people are unintelligent at all. They were clever enough to blind people with vague unsubstantiated claims that kept the YES campaign spending time debunking them instead of talking about the actual Treaty and what was in it. This then added another group to the NO campaign. Those who said the YES side hadn't explained well enough why to vote yes. Well when you are spending time trying to explain why Lisbon does not mean we will have legalised abortion followed by why it doesn't mean a losing a Commisioner and so on you haven't got much time to argue the positive side.

I think the Yes campaign needs some looking at. I propose if this ends up with a second referendum that the Yes campaign make posters saying any of the following:-

"Vote Yes to reduce petrol prices"
"Vote Yes to keep your hospitals open"
"Vote Yes for more jobs for everyone"
"Vote Yes for free cash"
"Vote Yes for a free €10 bet with Paddy Power"

BlitzKrieg

bit harsh musician...You cant blame the entire No campaign on a few specific groups.

mewso

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

bit harsh musician...You cant blame the entire No campaign on a few specific groups.

Which parts of the NO campaign were heard the loudest?

Sin Fein then? Coropration Tax going up? Didn't they want that themselves anyway? Losing a commissioner? Wasn't that Nice?

Mr. Presentable

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.

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.

I didn't speak to 100's, but those I spoke to who voted no said they wanted to "slap Biffo", "put FF in their place", "show Bertie the door"

In summary, I think people used the referendum as a vote of confidence in the govt. They could hardly do otherwise - none of them seem to know what it was actually about.

BlitzKrieg

musician wrote: »

Which parts of the NO campaign were heard the loudest?

I'd grant you that, Libertas still have those billboards up in my hometown warning of backdoor tax and lost commissioners.


to be fair though, I had little issue with Sinn Fein in this campaign. And while I debated with leaflet holders on O connoll street and Grafton street over some of the mis represented facts in some of them, they were not difficult people to deal with.

(though with neither of us having the constituion or treaty on hand in the middle of a street we couldnt prove or disprove either's point.)

nesf

dlofnep wrote: »

You appear upset.

You appear, yet again, to miss the point.

ixtlan

thecaptain wrote: »

Most people dont want to go any further with this European scam.

We are sick of the fat cats ruling our lives.

What is all this about adapting the treaty, get out of Europe altogether.

Another soviet union in the making, end the police state and the eradication of human freedoms

While accepting your point of view, do you honestly think that if the choice were presented, ratify Lisbon or leave the EU, that the majority would support that?

As far as I can see the majority of the no wanted an adapted treaty, and the EU is as far from a police state as you can get. In fact one of the aspects of Lisbon was to prevent the council of justice ministers from applying either EU laws on such matters without oversight from the EU parliament, which tends to be very liberal.

ux.

murphaph

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

You guys can't have your cake and eat it. On the one hand the YES camp tell us the NO vote was a rag-tag bunch of protest votes while now you claim that a government has been elected in France and that because ONE element of that government's manifesto is pro-Lisbon that the entire electorate in France is now in favour of Lisbon??!! Rubbish! The french electorate voted for their current government for a number of reasons (mostly domestic as one might imagine!) as is the case with any general election, anywhere! WE ELECTED A PRO LISBON GOVERNMENT AND HAVE A PRO LISBON OPPOSITION AND WE STILL VOTED NO ON LISBON!!!

nesf

murphaph wrote: »

You guys can't have your cake and eat it.

Neither can you. So much scaremongering about unrelated issues went on that it is hard to claim that the No vote was really a rejection of the treaty as it was for legitimate reasons.

The single biggest problem with this vote is that the message is unclear. If people understood the treaty and rejected it, it would be clear what the message was. The problem is they didn't, and the yes side didn't seem any more informed than the No side. So it's not at all clear what would happen if the public were fully informed on the treaty, they might reject it or pass it by large margins.

murphaph

nesf wrote: »

Neither can you. So much scaremongering about unrelated issues went on that it is hard to claim that the No vote was really a rejection of the treaty as it was for legitimate reasons.

The single biggest problem with this vote is that the message is unclear. If people understood the treaty and rejected it, it would be clear what the message was. The problem is they didn't, and the yes side didn't seem any more informed than the No side. So it's not at all clear what would happen if the public were fully informed on the treaty, they might reject it or pass it by large margins.

Would you question the motives if the result had gone the other way? Or would (as I suspect) the juggernaut roll on unchecked?

Dyr

seamus wrote: »

That's pretty much it.




2. "I'm worried that Europe is becoming an authoritarian superstate". Regardless of how much I disagree with this statement, I cannot prove that this will never happen.

Given the response from some of our partners in europe to our vote i think it is already happening. A member state has rejected the treaty, Lisbon is now meant to be dead, Yet they're going to continue on regardless, When the architects of europe stop the by-hook-or-by-crook approach to "moving forward" I'll trust 'em but until then....

Retribution

murphaph wrote: »

WE ELECTED A PRO LISBON GOVERNMENT AND HAVE A PRO LISBON OPPOSITION AND WE STILL VOTED NO ON LISBON!!!

Because people dont understand what Lisbon really is? No one even bother to explain it to the Nations of Europe.

RedPlanet

It's a good test for the EU, the Irish government and our media.
So far i'd say all the above are acting pathetically.
And i think the Yes side today is very much damaged.
Since it's becoming clearer that the leaders of Europe are not interested in our opinion on a treaty that requires unaminity, what do you think would happen in a treaty that doesn't?

murphaph

murphaph wrote: »

WE ELECTED A PRO LISBON GOVERNMENT AND HAVE A PRO LISBON OPPOSITION AND WE STILL VOTED NO ON LISBON!!!

Practically every farmer I know at this stage voted no on account of WTO and mandelson..Do we get a clause in a new treaty banning Brasilian beef?
I've also mentioned of course the biddies that were handing out the Cóir leaflets.
It all adds up but it's nothing to do with what Lisbon does or doesn't do.Then theres the people I've met that have all said the same thing-I don't know what thats about so I voted know.
Thats the extremely clever tactics of spreading the lies so the yes campaign gets bogged down in trying to counter the lies rather than explain the treaty.

No need to shout by the way

nesf

murphaph wrote: »

Would you question the motives if the result had gone the other way?

Yes. The entire campaign was a shambles on both sides. Similar to Nice. Personally I'm in favour of the Treaty, so I wouldn't be upset but I'd be annoyed again by the way referendums are conducted in this country. It's not hard to question the second Nice result, the fact that the Commissioner issue was so big this time around just underlines how ill-informed people were about the treaty.

The whole process just reinforces the idea of rational ignorance and how ill-informed most voters are most of the time. If the Yes side had won, I'd have thought the better result for the country had won (you'd obviously hold the opposite view), it wouldn't change the fact that the majority of the electorate didn't seem to grasp what they were voting on though.

faceman

I find it hard to believe that there is still mud slinging going on in both sides, but particularly the No side.

I voted yes after researching what I voted for. There were many on both sides that didnt know what they were voting for and many media articular report that many people voted No because they didnt understand what they were voting for. ("If i dont understand something, why would i vote yes?" trick) I do feel that the government failed miserable to providing pro active education to voters on what the referendum was about. After all, i would consider myself to be both economic and political aware yet all my research was off my own back.

No that the vote is done and results found, i have become quite agitated much of the post discussion.

The whole 4m people deciding the future of 450m people argument annoys me. It implies that the people of ireland went against the majority opinion in the EU, that the treaty must proceed. we dont know if thats the case as no other country held a referendum.

Now i have a few worries about the future as follows:

* The only political party in the No camp was SF. I for one do not want my future decided upon by a bunch of politicans who didnt want us to join the EU or join the Euro in the first place. We do not know the background or real motivations of Libertas so I dont want them negotiating on our behalf either.

* So what do the no camp want? we need to hear the voices of the No people, the general punter who voted no. What message were they giving when voting no? Did they agree with SF or Libertas? Did they have other reasons? Its crucial that its discussed and brought out in the open soon, otherwise the nation looks like a bunch of headless chickens whereby the voice of the majority voted against something without outlining the reasons why. Less schoolyard talk of bullying, "are we considered stupid" etc, and more talk on how we move forward.

* Continued ratification of the treaty in the EU. I disagree with this (even though i voted yes) Lisbon was voted no, therefore the treaty is dead. As much as lisbon was plan B, the EU (including Ireland) now has to look at a plan C whatever form that may take.

* Finally, on the question of a second referendum. Normally i would be against it. But at the moment I am in 2 minds. I dont believe that a fair vote can be achieved when a percentage of the voters (on both sides) voted but admit not knowing what they were voting for. You cant really claim political victory if a fair percentage of your sides supporters do know what they have achieved or lost (depending on the outcome)

Mr.Micro

Because the Irish people did not give the YES vote to the Lisbon Treaty then it does not count or should not be allowed to derail the ratification of the Treaty according to some of our European neighbours. As we were the only country to be allowed a referendum, as our constitution would have to be amended to deny us one, the other European countries electorate had no say, but its the likes of Napoleon Sarkozy that dictate. Who is to say if the other countries had referenda on the issue then they may have voted no as well. Too bad if our referendum vote does not count in their eyes then the rest of the Europeans should wake up and realize that a handful of jumped up little men decide for us all. If anything if Ireland's vote is bypassed then it only goes to prove that we have no say at all .

limklad

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?

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.

The EU politicians in Europe knew the story about ratification and they deliberately worded the treaty so they would not have to go to their people to vote on it and it is anti-democratic of them.


By getting other countries to ratify and the treaty without the people and coming back to us is their way to bully us into submission. This is an ANTI-EU response by them. The EU was based on cooperation and respect of people will for Peace and cooperation through common goal and aims.



They are giving the NO Campaign which is full of Left and Right Wing throughout Europe creditability by their woefull comments that fly in the respect for the "People voice" that they are claiming to represent.



The EU Leaders should hold EU wide Referendum to let the people have the democratic right to speak afterall it's their future too.

seamus

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Because the Irish people did not give the YES vote to the Lisbon Treaty then it does not count or should not be allowed to derail the ratification of the Treaty according to some of our European neighbours. As we were the only country to be allowed require a referendum, as our constitution would have to be amended to deny us one, the other European countries electorate had no their say, but its the likes of Napoleon Sarkozy that dictate. Too bad if our referendum vote does not count in their eyes then the rest of the Europeans should wake up and realize that a handful of jumped up democratically elected little men have been asked to decide for us them all.

I've fixed your post.

Our vote cannot be "bypassed". The EU cannot change our constitution.

RedPlanet

faceman wrote: »

* Finally, on the question of a second referendum. Normally i would be against it. But at the moment I am in 2 minds. I dont believe that a fair vote can be achieved when a percentage of the voters (on both sides) voted but admit not knowing what they were voting for. You cant really claim political victory if a fair percentage of your sides supporters do know what they have achieved or lost (depending on the outcome)

I find the talk about a 2nd referenda pathetic. We can't just keep voting until the government gets the result they want.
And there is no precondition that you have to know anything about anything to cast your ballot and have it counted.
I actually proposed a voting mechanism for this very idea in the political theory forum but it was shot down.

nesf

RedPlanet wrote: »

I find the talk about a 2nd referenda pathetic. We can't just keep voting until the government gets the result they want.
And there is no precondition that you have to know anything about anything to cast your ballot and have it counted.
I actually proposed a voting mechanism for this very idea in the political theory forum but it was shot down.

Conversely should we take as valid results that weren't necessarily results that reflected the actual views of the people on a subject? If the majority of people didn't understand the treaty, should we not make a large effort to help them to understand it and run the referendum again and then accept that result as final?

Personally, I don't know the answer or what we should do in these situations. Should we even have referendums at all if we're going to run them until the people seem to have understood the question that they were being asked? Does a strong protest vote about unrelated matters make a poll's result invalid in some way?

I don't know where I stand on this, Yes supporter or not. I do think that referendums on matters like abortion, divorce etc should be rerun every so often because the electorate can and do change their minds on things and the voice of the people at any one point in time shouldn't forever silence the power of the voice of the people in the future. I really don't know what we should do with respect to stuff like Reform Treaties.

RedPlanet

RedPlanet wrote: »

I find the talk about a 2nd referenda pathetic. We can't just keep voting until the government gets the result they want.

Nothing you can do about that I'm afraid except vote no the next time or start a No means no party that gets an over all majority at the next election.
It is a part of democracy that people can be given a chance to change their mind.

And there is no precondition that you have to know anything about anything to cast your ballot and have it counted.

I'll remind you of that the next time I see you whinging about a general election result

Tim Robbins

dlofnep wrote: »

So lads, there you have it. Even though we went out in our 100,000's to vote no - it doesn't matter

I don't see your problem. They can't force Lisbon on us and won't force Lisbon on us. We have excluded ourselves, we can't blame them for something we did ourselves.

You voted No, you got what you wanted. So what's your problem?

Other countries can ratify it and proceed without us. Nothing wrong with that. We proceeded without the Brits and the Danes without the Euro.

You can't have it both ways. Simple as that. I just wish you No people thought through the consequences of your vote before you ruined it for the rest of us that want the EU project to move forward with Ireland.

dlofnep

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Other countries can ratify it and proceed without us. Nothing wrong with that. We proceeded without the Brits and the Danes without the Euro.

This is absolutely incorrect. They cannot go forward without every member state ratifying the treaty. By going forward, they are stating that the one country that actually had a voice on the treaty, who rejected it - will not be listened to. They are stating that democracy within the EU will not be respected.

Had they of given the rest of the PEOPLE within the EU a voice, they would not be able to get away with this and the text would have been rejected across multiple states IMO.

one and this is my personal gripe, why do you insist on treating europe as some single political entity?

Because if you haven't noticed already, that is exactly what the EU wishes to be. One single legal entity, which controls power from the top down.