No Vote = Worthless? No Voters = Stupid?

Tim Robbins

dlofnep wrote: »

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.

Of course they can go ahead. I was listening to a German Diplomat on Saturday radio. All they have to is put the exact same treaty to every state with one word missing from it - "Ireland". If we want to exclude ourselves that's our decision. Why should be cause more instability in Europe, when we can't even articulate a way forward or exactly what our problem with the treaty is?

Suppose the other 26 countries say ok Ireland what's your suggestion? What do we say so that the no camp in this state our happy and the other 26 countries are happy. There's no point coming out with some iconclastic Sinn Fein or Declan Gandey rhetoric. You need concrete and workable suggestions. If the other 26 countries accept this treaty it is extremly arrogant of the Irish thinking they can stop it all if they don't even have a concrete proposal or better suggestion.

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.

That's moot and hypothetical.

limklad

Tim Robbins wrote: »

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.

There is nothing wrong in saying NO. No is a safe word. Yes can be very dangerous because it is a very dangerous world out there and there is people who will take advantage of you if you are not too careful.

We tell our kids to Say NO to Strangers and not to talk to strangers even if they offer them a lift or take them away somewhere the child thinks they wanted to go..

If I Blinded folded you and I blinded fold myself and drove both of us down I road that I was told was straight at 300 Miles per hour. Would you be happy? No you would not. You like to have Both of our eyes open when I am driving.
To me this analogy fits what the Politicians behave like. They signed a treaty without properly reading it and then expect us to follow them.
If the Politicians come back again in an other referendum, they better have their homework done.


No consequences are the EU will continue to run at it is.
Other people will always b*t*h when things do not go their way will always bully you either aggressively or passively. It is time to be strong and defend our democracy, Not to be weak and led EU leaders and their unscrupulous supporters harasses us. And we should point out to them about their failure to respect current agreements. For their failure to respect current agreements will stand to effect them in the future.
We are in school yard politics now as EU leaders and their unscrupulous supporters are abandoning EU principles that was unanimous agreed on in previous treaties..

SkepticOne

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Of course they can go ahead. I was listening to a German Diplomat on Saturday radio. All they have to is put the exact same treaty to every state with one word missing from it - "Ireland". If we want to exclude ourselves that's our decision. Why should be cause more instability in Europe, when we can't even articulate a way forward or exactly what our problem with the treaty is?

They can but what would that mean? As I said on another thread, would these 26 countries then set up their own parallel commission with 18 commissioners in addition to the existing one?

bill_ashmount

Tim Robbins wrote: »

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.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, change the record.

Your campaign had it all, Every major Irish Political party, all the vested interests, IBEC, IFA, 27 governments, 26 of them foreign and you still lost.

BlitzKrieg

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.

You could argue that is what it *wants* to be, but at this current time and moment its not. What a French or German minister says representing his own country does not represent the EU, the politicions in the council of ministers are all the heads of states of their own states and they are working for what they believe is the best for their own states.


Nothing a single minister at this current point can be the representation of the opinion of the EU, you can get an opinion of the Commission which could be the closest, but then it can be (and has been) widely different to the opinion of The Council of Ministers or (and most obviously) the European Parliment.

but none of them at this time and space can stand up and be the voice of the EU.

Tim Robbins

limklad wrote: »

There is nothing wrong in saying NO. No is a safe word. Yes can be very dangerous because it is a very dangerous world out there and there is people who will take advantage of you if you are not too careful.

We tell our kids to Say NO to Strangers and not to talk to strangers even if they offer them a lift or take them away somewhere the child thinks they wanted to go..

If I Blinded folded you and I blinded fold myself and drove both of us down I road that I was told was straight at 300 Miles per hour. Would you be happy? No you would not. You like to have Both of our eyes open when I am driving.

What a load of illogical claptrap. Here's the stupidity of your argument reversed. If my bank manager told me I could have a morgage, what should I say: Yes. If my job offers me a promotion what should I say, yes.
If my friend offers me a lift and to drive safely according to the law, what should I say, yes.

To me this analogy fits what the Politicians behave like. They signed a treaty without properly reading it and then expect us to follow them.
If the Politicians come back again in an other referendum, they better have their homework done.

Argument by analogy is illogical and only used by people who can't argue something logically.

No consequences are the EU will continue to run at it is.

Incorrect. There have changes needed since Nice and Nice even stipulated that. We are 27 countries now not 25. We need further co-operation on climate change. We need further accountability to national governments.

The other 26 can legally move on without us.

Other people will always b*t*h when things do not go their way will always bully you either aggressively or passively. It is time to be strong and defend our democracy, Not to be weak and led EU leaders and their unscrupulous supporters harasses us. And we should point out to them about their failure to respect current agreements.
We are in school yard politics now.

This is just euro-skeptic nonsense. You obviously haven't a clue about politics in general. Have you ever read a book about politics, democracy, Europe from the non - fiction section?

I am sorry, but such asinine vacous arguments make me cringe. I mean you haven't even said one thing that is particular to the treaty. Everything you said could be applied to any European Treaty. You haven't offered one clear or constructive suggestion to move forward.

I am glad we don't have treaties for the UN as such silly nonsense like what you just have offered would no doubt manifest and ruin our involvement in that also.

Tim Robbins

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, change the record.

Your campaign had it all, Every major Irish Political party, all the vested interests, IBEC, IFA, 27 governments, 26 of them foreign and you still lost.

Unfortunately we didn't have protest voters and scare mongerers.

Tim Robbins

SkepticOne wrote: »

They can but what would that mean? As I said on another thread, would these 26 countries then set up their own parallel commission with 18 commissioners in addition to the existing one?

Good question. I am not sure. I am just quoting what a German diplomat said. I would imagine they could move on no problem without us.

bill_ashmount

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Unfortunately we didn't have protest voters and scare mongerers.

Ye had plenty of lemmings though

Tim Robbins

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Ye had plenty of lemmings though

People who want Ireland to play a central role in moving Europe forward. You're thinking offers nothing. You make the DUP look progressive.

mike65

People who want Ireland to play a central role in moving Europe forward

Tim Robbins did you cog that slogan off a Yes poster?

Mike.

mike65

Tim Robbins wrote: »

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.

A rather facile reading of the wishes of "de people", it not a question of ruining anything. Its a question of whether the EU top brass can managed a more nuianced response to the vote than you I suggest. Jumping up and down and yelling Damn Damn Damn! will get us nowhere.

Comparisons with the Euro holds no water as the UK and Sweden made a choice not to join while the Danes put it to the poeple and it was voted down. The currency legistation was not framed to require a Full House to work. Lisbon was, so it's all or nothing.

I doubt dropping the word Ireland from a tweaked text will ork either as the bulk of the Treaty contains all the previous treaties which we have voted through and which form part of our laws, rules and regulations. It could get messy trying to run the two in parallel esp if more than one country should reject the treaty (don't assume that won't happen!).

Mike.

dlofnep

Tim Robbins wrote: »

People who want Ireland to play a central role in moving Europe forward. You're thinking offers nothing. You make the DUP look progressive.

Hi Tim, are you as eager to give your money away as your democracy? If so I'll hook you up in my paypal details. Maybe I'll be as rich as Declan Ganley!

Tim Robbins

dlofnep wrote: »

Hi Tim, are you as eager to give your money away as your democracy? If so I'll hook you up in my paypal details. Maybe I'll be as rich as Declan Ganley!

The Lisbon treaty contains provision to improve democracy in Europe.

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.

And from...

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

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.

dlofnep

Improve democracy? Pull the other one Tim. That's why the people of Europe were not given a voice on this treaty, and had the all-powerful try to pass it. It is why the Irish government was asked not to focus on the treaty itself, but rather the benefits of previous EU membership.

Secondly, absolutely NOTHING has to be done if 1 million citizens raise an issue. Not one iota. The commission does NOT have to do anything with it. Also - imagine trying to get 1 million signatures in Ireland for an issue pertaining to an Irish agenda? Do you honestly expect someone to conjure up 1 million signatures? The citizens initiative means absolutely NOTHING to Ireland, but rather - larger states, which even at that - still are not gaurenteed anything other than a shoulder to cry on.

The EU is not democratic. Quote whatever convenient articles you wish, but the common man on the street can already see the future of the EU. Thousands of people across radio shows, internet forums and youtube have thanked the Irish people for voting no to this farce of a text. The only ones that appear to be complaining are the all-power elite.

So no Tim, the EU is not democratic and it will only fade democracy within it's member states over due course.

Message me anytime you want to make me rich. Thanks.

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

They can but what would that mean? As I said on another thread, would these 26 countries then set up their own parallel commission with 18 commissioners in addition to the existing one?

As you imply, the institutional changes in Lisbon cannot be made. However, the Commission changes and the MEP changes are in the Nice Protocol on Enlargement, and the movement of QMV areas can go by enhanced cooperation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Mr.Micro

seamus wrote: »

I've fixed your post.

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

My post does/did not need fixing, thank you. "Jumped up little men" does not mean they were not democratically elected as you wrongly interpreted in my post. Why not just get rid of TD's all together and let the jumped up little men run our lives instead? Our vote would be bypassed if we did not have a referendum, instead we have apologist politicians where us the electorate have let them down. Other countries did not get to vote for the Treaty but their MEP's did, not the same thing. What do MEP's do anyway for us? Nothing, but live on the gravy train and help pass EU resolutions/directives that are often never even put into Law here.

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

As you imply, the institutional changes in Lisbon cannot be made. However, the Commission changes and the MEP changes are in the Nice Protocol on Enlargement, and the movement of QMV areas can go by enhanced cooperation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes, those things already agreed under previous treaties can go ahead. In that respect Ireland isn't really holding up things by not ratifying the Lisbon treaty. Ireland will certainly support things it has already signed up for.

Tim Robbins

dlofnep wrote: »

The EU is not democratic.

This says it all. EU Parliament have elections. You know those things?
Council are elected governments. Commission are appointed by elected governments. You really haven't a clue.

Lisbon was giving more power to the Parliament which is directly elected by the people. But you don't want that.

It also contains more checks for national parliaments, but you dont' want that either?

So you like democracy, you said no to more democracy.

dlofnep

dlofnep wrote: »

The only ones that appear to be complaining are the all-power elite.

In fairness now-this NO vote brought out the hard core no vote to everything EU as per usual.
The rest of this No vote is sectional interests voting no because they can and the don't knows that voted No because it was "safe"
They can also vote no because they can depending on how their mood swings.
So really a lot of the No vote IS a complaining vote but it's not about the EU they are complaining.It's also a swing vote which is why you have the more fervent anti EU campaigners fearfull of 2nd referenda..

So no Tim, the EU is not democratic and it will only fade democracy within it's member states over due course.

I smell a scare monger sweeping statement there...a sound byte if you will to be honest.

limklad

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What a load of illogical claptrap. Here's the stupidity of your argument reversed. If my bank manager told me I could have a morgage, what should I say: Yes. If my job offers me a promotion what should I say, yes.
If my friend offers me a lift and to drive safely according to the law, what should I say, yes.


Argument by analogy is illogical and only used by people who can't argue something logically.


Incorrect. There have changes needed since Nice and Nice even stipulated that. We are 27 countries now not 25. We need further co-operation on climate change. We need further accountability to national governments.

The other 26 can legally move on without us.


This is just euro-skeptic nonsense. You obviously haven't a clue about politics in general. Have you ever read a book about politics, democracy, Europe from the non - fiction section?

I am sorry, but such asinine vacous arguments make me cringe. I mean you haven't even said one thing that is particular to the treaty. Everything you said could be applied to any European Treaty. You haven't offered one clear or constructive suggestion to move forward.

I am glad we don't have treaties for the UN as such silly nonsense like what you just have offered would no doubt manifest and ruin our involvement in that also.

I see you have your own blindfold on your eyes and getting irrational and very emotional because people do not believe you. You are just like the sour politician who just lost an election.

UN does not governs us nor pass laws on us. No problem there. Read the politics book and past failures and disasters caused by politics yourself.

skearon

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

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.

I doubt anyone on the yes side would have a problem with that, I disagree with you, but I respect your decision, as you bothered to take the time to research the issue and then made a decision.

However it would seem according to the Irish Time Poll that 50% of those who voted No didn't understand or voted no believing a lie (neutrality).

Libertas are unelected and unaccountable and used their financial muscle to spread lies which a large number of people believed

SeanW

dlofnep wrote: »

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.

You Lose!
Godwin's Law

But that only applies to long discussions, it is rare that someone invokes Godwin's Law in the first post!

skearon

Mr.Micro wrote: »

As we were the only country to be allowed a referendum,

It has nothing to do with 'being allowed', our constitution requires a referendum for any change to the constitution, other countries have different systems which require their elected respresentives in parliament vote.

Neither is right or wrong, its up to each country to ratify according to their rules and would be wrong for us to interfer with their systems and vica versa

Mr.Micro

skearon wrote: »

It has nothing to do with 'being allowed', our constitution requires a referendum for any change to the constitution, other countries have different systems which require their elected respresentives in parliament vote.

Neither is right or wrong, its up to each country to ratify according to their rules and would be wrong for us to interfer with their systems and vica versa

No dispute there, so long as they respect our No vote. I have always been pro European but that is not to say that I will accept unreservedly everything that I am asked to vote on re Europe.

dlofnep

Deleted User wrote: »

I smell a scare monger sweeping statement there...a sound byte if you will to be honest.

It's not scare-mongering. It's a fair assessment of the EU and an assessment that many people across the EU would agree with. Just because you label it scaremongering doesn't make it so.

ChocolateSauce

dlofnep wrote: »

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.


John.

Just a quick note on this,

Maybe some of us think the EU is more trustworthy and capable than the government?

Yeah, little things the government can handle, like roads, the health system, organised crime and corruption. But important things, like human rights, civil liberties, global warming, etc, I'd much sooner trust the EU with.

Let's not forget that the EU parliament is directly elected and all bills at EU level require its assent to come into force.

In otherwords, I doubt many people voted yes because they were told to by their TDs.

Boggle

Maybe some of us think the EU is more trustworthy and capable than the government?

Probably still do to an extent although this thing has dented that seriously. Only difference is individually we have arguably a far bigger say in how Ireland is run than how Europe will be run. (Imagine going on Joe Duffy to complain about Europe;->)

I mean ffs they dont even have to consider a petition unless you can garner 1million signatures!!

Scofflaw

Boggle wrote: »

Probably still do to an extent although this thing has dented that seriously. Only difference is individually we have arguably a far bigger say in how Ireland is run than how Europe will be run. (Imagine going on Joe Duffy to complain about Europe;->)

I mean ffs they dont even have to consider a petition unless you can garner 1million signatures!!

Whereas the Irish government doesn't have such a mechanism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Inquitus

Lets look at the Facts.

1) The Lisbon Treaty cannot be ratified without agreement of all 27 States.
2) The other countries are continuing with the ratification process.
3) The only reason to do so is to try and force a 2nd Referendum further down the line, when its 26 v 1.
4) The Gov may well not be able to hold a 2nd referendum given the political climate and the damage it may do, so that leaves us in limbo.

The Irish voting public did not make an informed and rational decision on this treaty. I question whether something as complex as this can be understood by enough of the electorate in a sufficient manner for a meaningful referendum, it's the reason we elect a Government and they have hoards of experts on EU Law etc etc is to make complex decisions on matters the layman knows little or nothing about. Obviously everyone in this and other threads has taken time to come to an informed decision on what they feel is best for the country, but we are a minority out of those who cast a vote.

30% of no voters voted no because they didn't understand it...i.e. no idea if it was good or bad....the information was available for everyone to spend time gaining an understanding, if you are too lazy or stupid to do some research don't vote blindly, 18% of voters cited the lies peddled by Libertas on abortion and conscription etc as the reason for voting no....2 issues completely unrelated to the treaty and used for scaremongering only, 10% to give the Government a bloody nose.

I am sure a large number of people also voted Yes with little or no knowledge of the Treaty.

Now whether the result would have been any different if everyone who voted had a clue about the Treaty I don't know, but this was a distorted referendum where a significant number of people voted largely on issues unrelated to the Lisbon treaty.