For those who voted yes, and are dissappointed.

PopeBuckfastXVI

I have three questions for the yes voters. I'm one myself.

I'd ask that no voters refrain from commenting on this thread, there are many many 'Lisbon implication' threads, I don't want this to be one of them.

1. Were you involved in the 'yes' campaign?
2. Did you think it was a good campaign?
3. If we get another shot would you want to do more than just vote?

From reading these threads it seems to me that the 'yes' voters of boards have much much more convincing arguments than any I saw in the 'yes' campaign. I think if we get another chance we need people like you to make yourselves heard, perhaps by forming an internet based real grassroots campaign, rather than the astroturfing of other groups.

Maybe a Lisbon facts website, with rebuttle to the 'No' arguments, provided by those I've been reading on these boards over the last few days, and anyone else who has an interest in establishing the truth of what is, and what is not in Lisbon?

For me the answers above are

1. No
2. No
3. Yes

What do you think?

sink

Same for me.

No
No
Yes

I am disappointed Lisbon didn't pass and I think I would be willing to get involved in a grass roots campaign if there is a second referendum. It just depends on when it is as I might be out of the country.

Ri na hEireann

1. On a very small scale as I'm in the middle of the Leaving Cert.
2. It was rubbish
3. Yes

Personally I was disappointed with the lack of youth support for Lisbon. I know from being involved in youth politics that virtually all young Irish people have a very idealistic view of the EU and that Lisbon was indeed a step in the right direction in terms of getting there.

At the end of the day the No vote is hindering my future and my peers future in Europe and in all honesty I don't think that's very fair.In saying that it's clear the young vote didn't get out there so we can't really complain. However, what bothers me most is that the majority of the No vote was all in all based on everything but the content of the Lisbon treaty. The no campaign focused on,lets be realistic, lies and fairytales. By the way I'm not being this stereotypical "elitist" yes voter I've been reading about on here I'm just telling it how it is.

If there is another campaign the Yes side has to be more agressive in shooting down the lies of Sinn Féin or Libertas. We can't allow them risk Ireland's future involvement in Europe.

But yes I will definately get involved in Lisbon 2 which however, I doubt will materialise

ixtlan

And the same for me...

No
No
Yes

Shall we meet again on here a few months before the next one? If there is one.

And actually it might be good for some of the more reasoned no people to be involved also. IRLConnor has already asked for this. I sent him a PM with contact details for myself.

Ix

Tim Robbins

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I have three questions for the yes voters. I'm one myself.

I'd ask that no voters refrain from commenting on this thread, there are many many 'Lisbon implication' threads, I don't want this to be one of them.

1. Were you involved in the 'yes' campaign?
2. Did you think it was a good campaign?
3. If we get another shot would you want to do more than just vote?

1. No
2. No
3. Yes - would probably do alliance for europe.

zig

1. no
2. no
3. yes, not in a serious way but I would help with posters and leaflets to houses,internet campaigning also. But I wouldn't make a great politician, I don't know if Id be able to call to houses and convince no voters.

Daftendirekt

1. No
2. No
3. Yes

After hearing the result of the referendum, I was left with the feeling that I could have done more than just vote, so if there is a Lisbon II, I'd like to get more involved. That said, I'd prefer to avoid campaigning for a Yes vote, and focus more on debunking the inevitable myths and misinformation, and actually explaining reasons for voting yes to people.

The Yes/No campaigns both left a bad taste in my mouth this time round.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Well I was thinking of a FAQ website. Where people could take the following style questions:


Will My Tax Increase?
Explanation

What the No Campaign Says
Summary

Why They're Wrong
Rebuttle

Perhaps people with different expertise could take different FAQ's, also I would like to run a Petition off the same site which would call for another Referrendum.

We 'Yes' People have a voice too, and if enough people change their minds, why shouldn't we get to vote again on a non ammended Treaty, that's democracy!

I feel that we should be taking immediate steps to educate people, and point out where they were lied to, and build a consensus towards a second referendum.

All this could be done easily enough with a few intelligent collaborators, a well run website, and some press releases.

I believe firmly there is an appetite out there for the truth, and that when it comes out people will want to vote again, as this time they will know what they are voting for.

VoidStarNull

I'd be willing to help out.

A big short-coming of the last campaign was the lack of positive reasons to vote yes. Suggest adding a section on that, there's been plenty of stuff posted here over the past while.

PH01

No
No
Yes.

Still can't believe we lost this. But a rerun isn't going to be straight forward. That was a 53% turnout btw and we'll need a 64% turnout to turn this around.

turgon

PH01 wrote: »

Still can't believe we lost this. But a rerun isn't going to be straight forward. That was a 53% turnout btw and we'll need a 64% turnout to turn this around.

Not necessarily. I think if you got rid of the No voters who were scared into it (by Coir et al) you'd knock a fair bit off of the No side. In fact Id go as far to say the 53% trunout could yield Yes. I wouldn't mind a re-run, it would let me get involved in campaigning. If ye needed a No representative for the FAQ mentioned above, just ask!!!!!

Gambler

Unfortunately I think we're too late. I spent all my time chatting to anyone I knew who was voting no in the run up to the election trying to shake the brainwashing they were getting but I wasn't helped by the government one bit. I actually had one person say to me that what I was saying couldn't be right because if it was then surely the government would be saying it too!

Unfortunately I honestly believe that the lisbon treaty will be rebranded, all members except Ireland will be allowed to sign up to it and they will move on without us, and to be honest they are right to do just that. Over the last few years I think this country has just gotten worse and worse. People are more xenophobic and less friendly than I ever remember them being and this no vote just brings it home that this country just isn't the place I thought it was anymore

The_Tempest

No
No
Yes

I'm after spending the last 30mins ranting to my GF (i know, every GF loves politics:P) about the no voters. I don't mean to sound condescending but the majority of the no voters either had no clue what they were or were not voting for or they saw a poster which they thought was bad and voted no without actually understanding the treaty. I wouldn't be surprised if the EU moved away from Ireland and then the No voters will have truly ****ed us over

FrankGrimes

No
No
Yes

Though I think the best way to run the Yes campaign is to avoid being condescending or patronising to No voters, that's just out of line and also foolish as it gets an emotive, negative response. Also, the very nature of the Irish mindset has a lot of 'don't you tell me what to do' in it (in some areas more than others ) so forcing anything to these voters, or focusing on the consequences of them voting no, is a big no no.

The treaty should be sold to the electorate as opposed to the previous 'trust us, we know best' approach. It shouldn't be that hard - it's really along the lines of 'being in the EU works well for Ireland, but the EU itself could be run more smoothly. We're not proposing we handover any more power to Brussels, this is all about making the EU more streamlined on only the work it already does. This means you'll get the same decisions that have served us so well to-date, but those decisions will be made and implemented quicker'.

Then, and due to the nature of the No campaign, this area will be key - proactive rebuttals of No arguments are absolutely essential. Every time someone hears a claim such as 'this treaty undermines our neutrality' there should be 10 responses from members of the Yes campaign outlining why this is patently untrue. Some of those responding should actually have a copy of the treaty in their hands - take away the mystery.

Every Yes campaigner should become fluent in the treaty and they should also publish a summary of what the treaty is changing with commentary (e.g. this clause is an example of the EU recognising there will be no conscription of the Irish public).

And then the top-level document the Yes campaign uses should be something along the lines of a one pager with 2 columns - "Here is what the treaty gives Ireland" and "The treaty does NOT affect any of the following" - that latter column will need to be updated on a daily basis as newer No claims are aired.

So what if that all sounds like more aggressive campaigning - it's whats needed and the main change in the approach has to be a conscious effort to both sell the actual treaty (not the potential negative consequences) to the electorate, but at the same time recognition that the No campaign will be formidable so this has to be fought tooth and nail. Fight the campaign based on what's in the treaty, not the bigger picture - that didn't work.

Butterbox

I think it is helpful if we first know what we were voting for. We were not voting for or against the Lisbon treaty. The Irish government could not ratify this treaty because it conflicted with something in our constitution. We were voting to remove this conflict and insert new text. I am astounded that at no point in the campaign, either by the referendum commission, government, opposition parties or No campaign was it explained what we were voting for.
The reason I voted no was nothing to do with Lisbon. If Lisbon was the greatest treaty ever written, I would still vote no because the change to article 10, in particular, of our constitution was disturbing and in my oppinion has implications beyound Lisbon. If passed, article 10 would then read:

10° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.

In my view this tears up our constitution and allows any law passed in Europe to trump any constitutional protections we might have had. This is a very dangerous and wide-reaching change and I am disgusted that most people don't even know they were changing if.

So before you get all high-and-mighty about being superior to those who voted no, at least start by realising what they voted no to.

ixtlan

Butterbox wrote: »

In my view this tears up our constitution and allows any law passed in Europe to trump any constitutional protections we might have had. This is a very dangerous and wide-reaching change and I am disgusted that most people don't even know they were changing if.

So before you get all high-and-mighty about being superior to those who voted no, at least start by realising what they voted no to.

This point of view is understandable Butterbox. As a yes voter I also was somewhat concerned about that text, since it does seem to imply as you said.

However, the things to bear in mind are

1/ All the inserted texts for the previous treaty ratifications were like this, so this not not new to Lisbon.
2/ There has never been an occasion when an EU law was taken to task for actually conflicting with the constitution (the remaining Irish portion of the text), despite 35 years of EU law and much scaremongering.
3/ My opinion: Legal input would be useful here.... The alternative to the current text would be to insert into the constitution many many clauses reflecting items in the Lisbon treaty and we might end up with a far more complex document.

Ix.

Butterbox

ixtlan wrote: »

This point of view is understandable Butterbox. As a yes voter I also was somewhat concerned about that text, since it does seem to imply as you said.

However, the things to bear in mind are

1/ All the inserted texts for the previous treaty ratifications were like this, so this not not new to Lisbon.
2/ There has never been an occasion when an EU law was taken to task for actually conflicting with the constitution (the remaining Irish portion of the text), despite 35 years of EU law and much scaremongering.
3/ My opinion: Legal input would be useful here.... The alternative to the current text would be to insert into the constitution many many clauses reflecting items in the Lisbon treaty and we might end up with a far more complex document.

Ix.

Admittedly, that is a more reasoned response than I expected.
As you say, some legal input would be invaluable. But isn't this the debate we should be having before we even get to reading Lisbon, let alone accepting it.

Agent Smith

YES
NO
YES

ixtlan

Butterbox wrote: »

Admittedly, that is a more reasoned response than I expected.
As you say, some legal input would be invaluable. But isn't this the debate we should be having before we even get to reading Lisbon, let alone accepting it.

I always try to be reasonable! Sorry to be hijacking the thread on this issue, but anyhow...

I am sure that there is an army of lawyers paid by the state (I won't say government because then you won't trust them) whose job it was to review Lisbon and our constitution and see what kind of conflicts there might have been. There is a level of trust required and honestly I have to say I do not have the expertise to claim I know more than that army.

However, I'll still offer an opinion. There are only 64 pages in the constitution. Most of them are taken with rules and procedures of governance. Is there really that much for Lisbon or the EU to supercede? If we start debating the constitution we would get caught in a legal quagmire.

For example....considering the dis-information about the death penalty being introduced by the EU look at this...

To interpret reasonably... in time of war, the state can pass any law that it wants superseding everything else in the constitution, except to use a death penalty. Should I be worried about that? Internment? Confiscation of property? Forced labour? Forced prostitution? Removal of children into state care?

Is this scaremongering? Well it can legally be done, so do we need to remove that clause?


3° Nothing in this Constitution other than Article 15.5.2°
shall be invoked to invalidate any law enacted by the
Oireachtas which is expressed to be for the purpose of
securing the public safety and the preservation of the
State in time of war or armed rebellion, or to nullify any
act done or purporting to be done in time of war or
armed rebellion in pursuance of any such law.

15.5.2° The Oireachtas shall not enact any law providing for the
imposition of the death penalty.


Oh, and by the way "time of war" is explained as pretty much any conflict anywhere in the world that we decide is "affecting the vital interests of the State". Should we move these posts to a new thread?

Ix

snollup

In my opinion the no vote was also a vote against the govt.

To try to have a second ref now would be wrong, totally undemocratic & would show a total disregard for the majority.

If the ref was on any other matter and post result the govt started to talk or even not rule out a second ref it just would not wash so why should this be any diff??

The facts are the country is in a total mess. There is no money in the country, the govt is currently trying to broker a loan in the region of 160bn (fact). The country has been totally miss-managed for the last 20 years. Are you all really surprised the treaty was voted down???

PopeBuckfastXVI

Butterbox and snollup, please take it to one of the other threads, there's plenty.

Ix, and everyone else, please do not engage with the 'No' camp on this thread, it will only distract from the business at hand.

PopeBuckfastXVI

turgon wrote: »

Not necessarily. I think if you got rid of the No voters who were scared into it (by Coir et al) you'd knock a fair bit off of the No side. In fact Id go as far to say the 53% trunout could yield Yes. I wouldn't mind a re-run, it would let me get involved in campaigning. If ye needed a No representative for the FAQ mentioned above, just ask!!!!!

Thanks Turgon, I do believe there were legitimate reasons for voting no (depending on you POV of course!) and it might certainly prove useful for a 'No' campaigner to outline those reasons. It's then up to the electorate to decide if they agree.

This whole thing for me is based on the premise that we would get the same turn out, and turn a majority of 'if you don't know vote no' crowd into 'yes' voters, along with a significant number of people who voted based on concerns that aren't actually affected by the treaty, but which were whipped up by elements within the 'No' camp.

ixtlan

Apologies for the diversion... back on track...

Are we suggesting a "geeks for Europe" campaign with us? Or would it be better to merge any efforts into some other group? ie Alliance for Europe? To be honest though in my area at least there was minimal involvement of yes groups of any kind, so did Alliance for Europe do much?

Yesterday on another thread, someone pointed to the "Spoofers guide to Lisbon" which is an entertaining read and should have been more widely read! http://www.toland.ie/Some_light_relief.html

Is there any merit in trying to explain to MEPs or other politicians why we think the referendum failed? and how we think future campaigns should be run? and maybe what changes/declarations need to be made/added to Lisbon or successive treaties?

Ix.

snollup

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Butterbox and snollup, please take it to one of the other threads, there's plenty.

Ix, and everyone else, please do not engage with the 'No' camp on this thread, it will only distract from the business at hand.

I am sorry but I thought boards were about debate, silly me!

Typical!!!

PopeBuckfastXVI

snollup wrote: »

I am sorry but I thought boards were about debate, silly me!

Typical!!!

If you want to debate the best way to get another referendum, and the best way to convince people to vote yes in it then you're more than welcome.

If you want to debate the outcome of the treaty, or what should be done next, please take it to one of the countless other threads already doing this.

Ix,

I'm thinking of starting a new group and linking up with anyone and everyone who is also on the 'yes' side. If that means that some other grouping wants to pick us up and run with us then that's fine with me.

Look at what Libertas did with no members and lots of money. I hope similar results could be achieved with no money and lots of members!

snollup

PopeBuckfastXVI - Your missing my point. Whats left to debate, quite literally the people have spoken.

There cannot be another ref , it would be totally undemocratic. Do you believe in democracy? If the result was yes and the no folk were trying to get the notion of a new ref into the public domain would you be happy?

ionix5891

snollup wrote: »

PopeBuckfastXVI - Your missing my point. Whats left to debate, quite literally the people have spoken.

There cannot be another ref , it would be totally undemocratic. Do you believe in democracy? If the result was yes and the no folk were trying to get the notion of a new ref into the public domain would you be happy?

if they change enough points and address the peoples concerns and new referendum is presented

how would that be undemocratic?

snollup

Because it will remain essentially the same doc, unless they change over 50% of it that is. Do you see them doing that? I can hardly blame you for feeling as you do, the timing of the ref was really bad and no doubt that this helped the no camp. That said, footballers blame conditions but that does not change the result - nor do they replay the match!

Scofflaw

ionix5891 wrote: »

if they change enough points and address the peoples concerns and new referendum is presented

how would that be undemocratic?

To allow for debate of this topic without derailing the thread, I've started a new thread on the question of whether multiple referendums are undemocratic. Let's keep this one for the original intention.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Jugs82

No
No
Yes

I agree completly with the concept of a web resource to look at all of the 'No' sides arguments against the treaty to see how accurate they were.
I still think that this would be a great idea, 2nd referendum or not..

Also, one thing that has amazed me since last Thursday has been the no. of NO voters that i know who have appeared to regret or certainly re-evaluate their decision.

In particular, this morning when one of my work colleagues was reading the local paper (Galway Independent) - there was an article from a professor of EU Law who stated that many of the arguments against the treaty were based on 'misconceptions' and that it posed no threat to our neutrality, tax rates etc... - she said 'why wasn't this published before the treaty?' as it would have changed her vote

Im not saying that others did not have any other reasons to vote no but i am of the opinion that of the 53% that voted - many, however significant could change their stance and vote yes

Diom

"No
No
Yes" appears to be the catchphrase of the day. Sign me up.