Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

[Article] Lack of understanding main reason for Lisbon No

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    kmick wrote: »
    3. Less commissioners - Internal housekeeping

    Unfortunately elements of the No side didn't portray it as that!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #63
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,762 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    kmick wrote: »
    In fairness to you I applaud you making an effort to address all the impossibly boring pints above. Can I re-address very quickly
    1. Two roles into 1 -Internal housekeeping
    2. One weighting system replaced with another - Internal housekeeping.
    3. Less commissioners - Internal housekeeping
    4. Public Voting - Good
    5. Policing and Justice - Not attainable without some massive European police forec which I dont think is desirable by any of the members.
    6. Human Rights - A concept which can never be attained.
    7. 'A greater role for peacekeepers' - Just a slogan
    8. Energy/environment - Energy is a commodity price determined by market. Environment - Fines imposed by EU paid out of public taxes is not working as the pain is not directly felt by anyone.
    9. President post - Internal housekeeping
    10. Public Petitions - A juvenile solution to a non-existent problem which is the concept that people want an active role in their governance. Most people dont - they are happy to leave the governance to their government. The fact that governments dont always act in the best interests of their electorate is another story.

    As OB has already pointed out none of the "Internal Housekeeping" changes could take place without a Treaty. Additionally while the ideal human rights position may never be attainable that doesn't mean we should stop trying to acheive it. An end to murder is equally unlikely, but we still try to continually legislate for it so that we can reduce it.

    The public petitions point is lost on many Irish people as - exactly as you say - they have little or no interest in getting involved. However this is not always the case through-out the member states. The fact that there was a petition to get it included in the Treaty in the first place goes to show that.

    From your points I would begin to question whether you have an issue with the Treaty at all, or is your issue to do with us voting on it? It seems that you're not adverse to the amendments, but more adverse to having to make a call on something that you don't see as particularly relevant to you? This was a point made by many both before and after the referendum, i.e. that the people shouldn't really have to vote on the ins and outs and machinations of the EU itself and that the Treaty was a matter for Governments and not really the people. Would this be a fair assessment?


  • Options
    #64
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,762 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    kmick wrote: »
    I don't look down on them at all. I think they are what they are - 'under achievers and in many cases crooks'.

    When I said they are my role models it was firmly tongue in cheek. The point I was making was that they don't inspire confidence albeit in a round about way.

    And on that we both agree 100%!!!!!


  • Options
    #65
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    molloyjh wrote: »
    Would this be a fair assessment?

    Ideally yes. But the fact is that these changes effect the way in which we govern, and that the form of government is the sole right of the people, then I would think not. But to be honest, this referendum campaign has brought the worst in a lot of different people - mainly ignorance scare mongering and economic threats - and I would nearly have preferred if it hadnt happened at all as I sick of this country ignorant conservative electorate and leaders.

    Oh, btw, I voted no.


  • Options
    #66
    kmick
    Registered Users Posts: 3,375 ✭✭✭kmick


    molloyjh wrote: »

    From your points I would begin to question whether you have an issue with the Treaty at all, or is your issue to do with us voting on it? It seems that you're not adverse to the amendments, but more adverse to having to make a call on something that you don't see as particularly relevant to you? This was a point made by many both before and after the referendum, i.e. that the people shouldn't really have to vote on the ins and outs and machinations of the EU itself and that the Treaty was a matter for Governments and not really the people. Would this be a fair assessment?

    Yes and no
    Yes to the point that internal housekeeping should be conducted internally.

    No in respect to the attitude which still abounds that this treaty somehow "affected us materially" either for good or for bad.
    Brian Cowen said today that the no vote in Lisbon has contributed to Irelands core economic issues. To me this is the type of spin that politicians use. It is neither helpful nor overly truthful.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,762 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    kmick wrote: »
    Yes and no
    Yes to the point that internal housekeeping should be conducted internally.

    No in respect to the attitude which still abounds that this treaty somehow "affected us materially" either for good or for bad.
    Brian Cowen said today that the no vote in Lisbon has contributed to Irelands core economic issues. To me this is the type of spin that politicians use. It is neither helpful nor overly truthful.

    I'm not sure that anyone who knew anything about the Treaty ever really said it affects us materially though. Maybe thats why the Yes campaign was so bad. However the changes were ones that, for whatever reason, were required. And that in turn required a Treaty, which in turn required a referendum by law here.

    As for Cowens comments, while I don't particularly like the guy this is yet another case of media spin. What Cowen really said was the our No vote could make matters worse. Which is very true for two main reasons. The first is that it creates a fair amount of uncertainty re the European project. Uncertainty as we all know in this kind of economic climate is never a good thing. Secondly it doesn't inspire the other members to go out of their way for us, which is a concern given that we will likely need them to in the near future!


  • Options
    #68
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    as i live in the uk -- i can tell you that we would vote no as well -- that is why Gorden Brown will not let the people have a say {even going back on his election promise} the new treaty takes more power away from your goverment and decisions about you will be made by a person or persons who know nothing about your culture


  • Options
    #69
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,762 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    getz wrote: »
    as i live in the uk -- i can tell you that we would vote no as well -- that is why Gorden Brown will not let the people have a say {even going back on his election promise} the new treaty takes more power away from your goverment and decisions about you will be made by a person or persons who know nothing about your culture

    Eh, what!? What powers exactly would it take away?


  • Options
    #70
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    molloyth sorry what i i meen is that the eu already has rights to legislate over external trade and customs policy.agiculture and fisheries and areas of domestic law----new laws will extend into your justice policy /immergration ---the eu will for the first time have a legal porsonality and its laws will trump those of national parliaments --i have not made this up check it on your website


  • Options
    #71
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,762 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    getz wrote: »
    molloyth sorry what i i meen is that the eu already has rights to legislate over external trade and customs policy.agiculture and fisheries and areas of domestic law----new laws will extend into your justice policy /immergration ---the eu will for the first time have a legal porsonality and its laws will trump those of national parliaments --i have not made this up check it on your website

    Ireland, like the UK, has opt outs with regard policing and justice matters and EU law already supersedes the laws of member states anyway. The EU (which is just a club made up of sovereign countries anyway) wasn't set to gain any new powers through this Treaty really. There were just changes in the way in which it operated and interacted with member states and the world at large.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    kmick wrote: »
    Yes to the point that internal housekeeping should be conducted internally.
    You've yet to explain how this can be done without a treaty.


  • Options
    #73
    kmick
    Registered Users Posts: 3,375 ✭✭✭kmick


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You've yet to explain how this can be done without a treaty.
    I have no idea. I never said I would explain it.

    The question I am posing is why would the common man say yes to this treaty.
    Many have answered back with lists of internal housekeeping which I have argued have no relevance to the common man and therefore do not address my question.

    Also due to obfuscation on both the Yes ("Jobs will be lost") and No ("Jobs will be lost") sides who can blame the common man for being confused about the whole thing.


  • Options
    #74
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    kmick wrote: »
    The question I am posing is why would the common man say yes to this treaty.
    And the question you are being asked is why would he vote 'No'?


  • Options
    #75
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    kmick wrote: »
    The question I am posing is why would the common man say yes to this treaty.
    Many have answered back with lists of internal housekeeping which I have argued have no relevance to the common man and therefore do not address my question.
    Just so we're clear: your definition of "common man" is someone who is entirely self-absorbed, and will block reforms that are necessary for "internal housekeeping" just because said reforms don't directly benefit him personally in any obvious way, and even though they have no obvious downside for him?


  • Options
    #76
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The question I am posing is why would the common man say yes to this treaty.
    Many have answered back with lists of internal housekeeping which I have argued have no relevance to the common man and therefore do not address my question.
    Just so we're clear: your definition of "common man" is someone who is entirely self-absorbed, and will block reforms that are necessary for "internal housekeeping" just because said reforms don't directly benefit him personally in any obvious way, and even though they have no obvious downside for him?

    Not necessarily just for fun - more that in the absence of any obviously personally relevant gains, it becomes an awful lot easier to vote on the strength of the fears conjured up so well by the No campaigns.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #77
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,762 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Just so we're clear: your definition of "common man" is someone who is entirely self-absorbed, and will block reforms that are necessary for "internal housekeeping" just because said reforms don't directly benefit him personally in any obvious way, and even though they have no obvious downside for him?

    I think kmick may be phrasing his issue with all of this badly - and correct me if I'm wrong kmick - but my reading of this is that he is wondering why we need to vote on these amendments at all, that because it apparently has no direct impacts on the "common man" it therefore really shouldn't be a matter for the common man, and the Treaty should be ratified by the Governments instead.

    The obvious answer being that this is just the way our, i.e. Irish, laws are set up due to the Crotty finding.

    It's still no excuse for voting No, but a perfectly good one, IMHO, for abstaining. Luckily for kmick he wasn't around so didn't vote! :pac:


  • Options
    #78
    kmick
    Registered Users Posts: 3,375 ✭✭✭kmick


    Oscar Bravo - In a word yes.
    If you want to sell something to someone you have to sell it on the basis that it provides some benefit to them even if that benefit is minimal or psychological.

    This treaty was sold on the basis that it provides no benefit to you but god help us all if you dont vote yes.

    "No plan B" must have been the worst sales technique ever. Can you at least agree this?

    Also Oscar Bravo the tone of your posts comes across very rudely. Not sure if you mean it or not but it just makes you sound mad like all of the other Yes/No bullys.


  • Options
    #79
    kmick
    Registered Users Posts: 3,375 ✭✭✭kmick


    djpbarry wrote: »
    And the question you are being asked is why would he vote 'No'?

    He would vote no for no other reason than it provides no discernible benefit to him. Is this not a good enough reason for you. I feel I am repeating myself over and over here.


  • Options
    #80
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    kmick wrote: »
    Is this not a good enough reason for you.

    No, but I try not to be that self involved so we're probably coming at it from two different angles.


  • Options
    #81
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    kmick wrote: »
    Oscar Bravo - In a word yes.
    Wow. I'd hate to have that cynical an outlook on life.
    If you want to sell something to someone you have to sell it on the basis that it provides some benefit to them even if that benefit is minimal or psychological.
    It does provide benefits. You've described many of those benefits as "internal housekeeping", as if that has no benefits. You've dismissed several others as either unachievable, or not worth achieving.
    This treaty was sold on the basis that it provides no benefit to you but god help us all if you dont vote yes.

    "No plan B" must have been the worst sales technique ever. Can you at least agree this?
    I agree that the "yes" campaign was a shambles. I disagree that this was a valid reason for voting "no".

    Your message seems to be that because you feel there's no definite, quantifiable upside to something, that you should actively prevent it from happening, even though there's no downside. I can't get my head around that. At best, it's a reason to abstain.
    Also Oscar Bravo the tone of your posts comes across very rudely. Not sure if you mean it or not but it just makes you sound mad like all of the other Yes/No bullys.
    Can you rephrase my previous post in a way that you would have found acceptable, without altering its meaning in any way?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    kmick
    Registered Users Posts: 3,375 ✭✭✭kmick


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Wow. I'd hate to have that cynical an outlook on life.

    I am more of a realist than a cynic.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It does provide benefits. You've described many of those benefits as "internal housekeeping", as if that has no benefits. You've dismissed several others as either unachievable, or not worth achieving.
    I said benefits to me. There is a massive difference. whether or not you think I am a self absorbed idiot or not you have to address this fundamental issue.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I agree that the "yes" campaign was a shambles. I disagree that this was a valid reason for voting "no".

    I disagree. I decided to maintain the status quo on the basis that I could not decipher if either side were telling the truth. I was actually out of the country so in reality I did not vote.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Your message seems to be that because you feel there's no definite, quantifiable upside to something, that you should actively prevent it from happening, even though there's no downside. I can't get my head around that. At best, it's a reason to abstain.
    Again status quo - it smelled a bit fishy.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Can you rephrase my previous post in a way that you would have found acceptable, without altering its meaning in any way?
    No you just try and be a shade nicer if you can please.


  • Options
    #83
    Smudgeyboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 153 ✭✭Smudgeyboy


    Here's some quotes.

    “Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly … All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”
    - Former French President V.Giscard D’Estaing, who helped to draw up the EU Constitution which the French and Dutch rejected in their 2005 referendums and which is now being implemented through the Lisbon Treaty, Le Monde, 14 June 2007

    “France was just ahead of all the other countries in voting No. It would happen in all Member States if they have a referendum. There is a cleavage between people and governments … There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK.”
    - French President Nicolas Sarkozy,at meeting of senior MEPs, EUobserver, 14 November 2007

    If it wasnt for our constitution we wouldnt have even gotten a say on this treaty...SO WHY CHANGE IT? This was an obvious call of attention to Ireland.

    How do you think people with these kinds of un-democratic opinions got to be leaders of the western world?
    Because that idea isnt real, it's the matrix. We need people to start educating themselves if we're ever going to have peace on earth.


  • Options
    #84
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    kmick wrote: »
    I am more of a realist than a cynic.
    You say potato...
    I said benefits to me. There is a massive difference. whether or not you think I am a self absorbed idiot or not you have to address this fundamental issue.
    There are benefits to you. Sure, those benefits don't come in the form of a €50 note handed to you as you leave the polling station, but a more functional EU is good for its citizens.
    I disagree. I decided to maintain the status quo on the basis that I could not decipher if either side were telling the truth. I was actually out of the country so in reality I did not vote.
    The Corinthian made the point on a thread elsewhere that a "yes" vote was, in fact, a vote for the status quo. This is actually quite a good point: voting "yes" would have allowed the EU to continue on a path that it has mapped out for itself.

    The "no" vote has created uncertainty, which is not what most people understand by "status quo". We don't know where the EU goes from here. We don't know whether where it goes will be good for us.

    One thing we can be sure of: it won't stay the way it is. Voting "no" to maintain the status quo is an exercise in naivety.
    Again status quo - it smelled a bit fishy.
    Maybe the person who voted before you had just come from a trawler?

    How can a treaty "smell fishy"?
    No you just try and be a shade nicer if you can please.
    I am nice. Most of my friends tell me my biggest problem is that I'm too nice. I'm sorry you feel bullied by me asking you questions, but I think the answers are important.


  • Options
    #85
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Smudgeyboy wrote: »
    Here's some quotes.

    “Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly … All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”
    - Former French President V.Giscard D’Estaing, who helped to draw up the EU Constitution which the French and Dutch rejected in their 2005 referendums and which is now being implemented through the Lisbon Treaty, Le Monde, 14 June 2007

    “France was just ahead of all the other countries in voting No. It would happen in all Member States if they have a referendum. There is a cleavage between people and governments … There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK.”
    - French President Nicolas Sarkozy,at meeting of senior MEPs, EUobserver, 14 November 2007
    Wow, never seen those before.
    If it wasnt for our constitution we wouldnt have even gotten a say on this treaty...SO WHY CHANGE IT? This was an obvious call of attention to Ireland.

    How do you think people with these kinds of un-democratic opinions got to be leaders of the western world?
    Because that idea isnt real, it's the matrix. We need people to start educating themselves if we're ever going to have peace on earth.
    This has what, exactly, to do with the thread topic?


  • Options
    #86
    Smudgeyboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 153 ✭✭Smudgeyboy


    Sorry! Went off on one! But hey I gave you the quotes! http://www.nationalplatform.org/wordpress/?page_id=82


  • Options
    #87
    kmick
    Registered Users Posts: 3,375 ✭✭✭kmick


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You say potato...
    A cynic will always predict a negative outcome as a realist I believe that all scenarios can end in failure/success or a bit of both. The difference is not even subtle Mr Potato.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    There are benefits to you. Sure, those benefits don't come in the form of a €50 note handed to you as you leave the polling station, but a more functional EU is good for its citizens.

    I have asked for these benefits time and time again. I have yet to see one concrete benefit to me.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The Corinthian made the point on a thread elsewhere that a "yes" vote was, in fact, a vote for the status quo. This is actually quite a good point: voting "yes" would have allowed the EU to continue on a path that it has mapped out for itself. The "no" vote has created uncertainty, which is not what most people understand by "status quo". We don't know where the EU goes from here. We don't know whether where it goes will be good for us.

    The same argument is used by the politicians "uncertainty", "directionless", "No plan B", "survival in jeopardy". It is totally unconvincing. We said no and the sky didn't cave in did it?

    Cowens assertion that our rejection of the treaty is somehow related to the upheaval in world affairs in the last few months is akin to blaming Iraq for 911. Its a good fit but it is false.
    EDIT: I wanted to find the quote and here it is in all its beauty
    “It is increasingly obvious to me that our economic difficulties and the political dilemma posed by the Lisbon Treaty are linked.”
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    How can a treaty "smell fishy"?
    Its an idiom.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I am nice. Most of my friends tell me my biggest problem is that I'm too nice. I'm sorry you feel bullied by me asking you questions, but I think the answers are important.
    Ask away but dont get snotty and start calling me names indirectly. It is childish.


  • Options
    #88
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    kmick wrote: »
    A cynic will always predict a negative outcome as a realist I believe that all scenarios can end in failure/success or a bit of both. The difference is not even subtle Mr Potato.
    "What's in it for me?" is the mark of a cynic, in my book.
    I have asked for these benefits time and time again. I have yet to see one concrete benefit to me.
    So basically, you're looking for the €50 note?

    What would you expect to see in an international treaty, that would directly benefit you?
    The same argument is used by the politicians "uncertainty", "directionless", "No plan B", "survival in jeopardy". It is totally unconvincing. We said no and the sky didn't cave in did it?
    Not yet. I'm not saying it will. I'm saying we don't know what will happen next. We certainly can't say for certain that whatever replaces Lisbon will definitely be a better deal for us, or even as good. That's the "status quo" you would have voted for.
    Its an idiom.
    I'm aware of that. What I'm not aware of (because you seem strangely reluctant to actually spell it out) is what about it was fishy? You've already said you didn't see any particular problem with it.


  • Options
    #89
    kmick
    Registered Users Posts: 3,375 ✭✭✭kmick


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    "What's in it for me?" is the mark of a cynic, in my book.
    Whats in it for me is self interest it has nothing to do with cynicism. I am not one of these people who feels he owes anything to his country however I am more than happy to pay taxes and be a good citizen in the interest of making my life more pleasant.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    So basically, you're looking for the €50 note?What would you expect to see in an international treaty, that would directly benefit you?
    mmmmmm lets see - how about linking interest rates to growth, inflation and the markets rather than just inflation. Its not even a novel idea just prudent.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Not yet. I'm not saying it will. I'm saying we don't know what will happen next. We certainly can't say for certain that whatever replaces Lisbon will definitely be a better deal for us, or even as good. That's the "status quo" you would have voted for.

    The only uncertainty that exists is in the mind of the politicians. We are too busy getting on with our lives to worry what MEPs spend their 200k a year (tax free and unaccountable) expenses on.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm aware of that. What I'm not aware of (because you seem strangely reluctant to actually spell it out) is what about it was fishy? You've already said you didn't see any particular problem with it.
    Yes correct but I didn't see much good in it either. However when I see a group of people in a faff telling me what to do I tend to walk the other direction.


  • Options
    #90
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    kmick wrote: »
    Whats in it for me is self interest it has nothing to do with cynicism. I am not one of these people who feels he owes anything to his country however I am more than happy to pay taxes and be a good citizen in the interest of making my life more pleasant.
    Don't get me wrong - I don't have a problem with self-interest. My problem is with the dog in the manger attitude of "you can't have what you want unless there's something in it for me".
    mmmmmm lets see - how about linking interest rates to growth, inflation and the markets rather than just inflation. Its not even a novel idea just prudent.
    You would reject the treaty in its entirety, just because it doesn't change the fundamental objectives of the European Central Bank to suit your individual preferences?
    The only uncertainty that exists is in the mind of the politicians. We are too busy getting on with our lives to worry what MEPs spend their 200k a year (tax free and unaccountable) expenses on.
    Now that's cynicism, no matter how you dress it up.
    Yes correct but I didn't see much good in it either. However when I see a group of people in a faff telling me what to do I tend to walk the other direction.
    I saw lots of bunches of people in "faffs" telling me to do all sorts of contradictory things in the lead-up to the referendum. I ignored them all and judged the treaty on its merits.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    kmick
    Registered Users Posts: 3,375 ✭✭✭kmick


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I saw lots of bunches of people in "faffs" telling me to do all sorts of contradictory things in the lead-up to the referendum. I ignored them all and judged the treaty on its merits.

    Good for you. I judged it on its merits as well. It didn't seem to have any.

    As for dog in a manger you seem to be suffering from the same affliction. Lets agree to disagree.


Advertisement