Why voting no?

Mario007

hobochris wrote: »

Have you looked into the qualified majority voting system that this treaty will implement? that alone IMO justifies a no vote. we are essentially having the volume tuned down on our voice in the European union.

The impression I get from the people in favor of a yes vote is that we should be a good little country and dance to the EU's tune.

I wont dance, I don't like this song.

whats wrong about the qualified majority? it makes sure that france, germany and britain cant push through issues even if they all ally together and it ensures that EU wont have to wait 2 years to reach an agreement on an issue but can be dynamic. And its more democratic than the veto. Plus when small countries get together they can outvote the big countries and push through the interest of small countries

molloyjh

hobochris wrote: »

Have you looked into the qualified majority voting system that this treaty will implement? that alone IMO justifies a no vote. we are essentially having the volume tuned down on our voice in the European union.

The impression I get from the people in favor of a yes vote is that we should be a good little country and dance to the EU's tune.

I wont dance, I don't like this song.

It does not half our voting weight hobochris. It changes the method by which QMV is run so that it looks at 2 aspects.

1. Population Size - we would be just under 0.9% in this regard. This is slightly less than half our voting weight.
2. Membership - all memeber states are equal, therefore our voting weight is over 3% in this regard. That's about 50% more than the current weight.

Combined these two aspects leave us pretty much as is. There are also additional aspects regarding the number of states needed to block legislation that has been brought in to ensure that the big states can't gang up on the small. On top of all that it is now also a dynamic system and won't have to be revisited every time a new member joins.

turgon

To the OP: see the way that since post #4 there have been no Treaty related resons for a No.

Post #30 (that QMV is disadvantageous to Ireland) was firmly debunked last year asfaik, when a Boardsie ran a computer program simulating all possible voting outcomes and discovered that QMV made little or no difference to Ireland. Scofflaw or sink might be in a position to find it, I forget the name of the poster who did it.

ro09 wrote: »

I am voting no because I love my Country, I dont want to be Part of a United States of Europe where I will get very little say in the way my country is run or what laws are introduced. People who are making Plenty of money out of Europe will of course vote Yes to everything.

You see, the Lisbon Treaty gives this guy more of a say through a) Citizens Initiative and b) more power to the MEP's he has elected.

But no, instead he has sought the full ideal. But the fact is that Ireland will be in the EU regardless of whether there is a No or a Yes vote. So his persons ballot is based on issues that wont be effected by the outcome, and thus squandered.

Rb wrote: »

What does that have to do with the Treaty?

Of all posters on Boards, you are the one in the last position to demand reference to the Treaty. If the Treaty was rushed so as to avoid a British vote, you have stated you would vote No solely on that. Please stop this pretense that you actually care about the content of Lisbon.

Rb

turgon wrote: »

Of all posters on Boards, you are the one in the last position to demand reference to the Treaty. If the Treaty was rushed so as to avoid a British vote, you have stated you would vote No solely on that. Please stop this pretense that you actually care about the content of Lisbon.

What I was hinting at is the whole Yes side saying "THEY VOTED FOR REASONS THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TREATY!!!HURRR!!!" and then going and encouraging people to do the very same thing, only in their "sides" favour.

I have my issues with the treaty itself, which I voted against last time, this time around though I'm voting for non-treaty reasons and don't really care if people have a problem with that. It's hypocritical for the "yes side" to bang on about the No voters voting for the wrong reasons and then trying to supply them with another bucket of wrong reasons, albeit in their favour, to choose from when voting this time.

I can still demand reference to the treaty though if the Yes side want to maintain this "We voted based on what the treaty said" pretense though.

Sure look at my signature, encouraging people to vote for reasons that have nothing to do with the text itself but sure most of the propaganda from both sides on the run up to his referendum will have nothing to with the treaty, again. It'll be scaremongering left right and centre and the indirect "threats" that result from either a Yes or No.

No denying that really so may as well embrace it, however as I said if "Yes" voters are going to keep up their pretentious "intelligence" and knowledge of the treaty, and remain lambasting No voters for voting for reasons that aren't in the treaty text, then I'll remain asking for their clarification as to where in the treaty they're getting their points from.

K-9

turgon wrote: »

Post #30 (that QMV is disadvantageous to Ireland) was firmly debunked last year asfaik, when a Boardsie ran a computer program simulating all possible voting outcomes and discovered that QMV made little or no difference to Ireland. Scofflaw or sink might be in a position to find it, I forget the name of the poster who did it.

Think it was taken from Politics.ie. We lost weighting to some of the larger countries and gained over some of the medium sized countries. Overall it more or less balanced out.

The weighting is only important if people think the big countries will run the EU against smaller countries interests. It doesn't work like. Hell, sure the big countries often can't agree between themselves, eg. France, Germany and the UK.

tonycascarino

Even though YES campaigners are trying to sell off this treaty as being the best thing since sliced bread while purposely ignoring the cons, here are possibly just some reasons one might say NO.


1. Guarantees promised are not legally binding - Treaty remains exactly the same

The guarantees promised are neither legally binding nor can ever be. The important point is that the Lisbon Treaty remains exactly the same. Not a single comma in the 100's of pages has been altered. No European country will have to ratify Lisbon again, which they would have had to do if anything had changed in law. To call the guarantees legally binding is simply false and less than honest. Only the words of the treaty itself count in the European Courts.


2. Ireland's role in Europe will diminish
If the Treaty is passed unchanged - that is the treaty the Irish people rejected last year - Ireland's role & influence in Europe will diminish severely. The Lisbon Treaty as it stands creates a fundamental change in the country's governance, with European Law taking precedence over our Constitution in most areas.


Germany's voting weight on the EU Council of Ministers will rise to 17% from it's previous 8%. France's vote will go from 8% to 13% & Britain and Italy's will rise from their current 8% to 12%. However Ireland's voting weight will be halved from 2% to 0.8%.


3. No respect of democracy

Whether YES campaigners like it or not, most Irish people will see the ignoring of the last vote as a disrespect of the people's will and therefore disrespect shown to democracy. YES campaigners will have a hard time trying to convince the ordinary Irish person otherwise.

oscarBravo

tonycascarino wrote: »

1. Guarantees promised are not legally binding - Treaty remains exactly the same

The guarantees promised are neither legally binding nor can ever be. The important point is that the Lisbon Treaty remains exactly the same. Not a single comma in the 100's of pages has been altered. No European country will have to ratify Lisbon again, which they would have had to do if anything had changed in law. To call the guarantees legally binding is simply false and less than honest. Only the words of the treaty itself count in the European Courts.

Yes, the treaty itself remains the same, but no, it's not true to say the guarantees are not legally binding. Pointless and unnecessary, maybe, but still legally binding.

2. Ireland's role in Europe will diminish

If the Treaty is passed unchanged - that is the treaty the Irish people rejected last year - Ireland's role & influence in Europe will diminish severely. The Lisbon Treaty as it stands creates a fundamental change in the country's governance, with European Law taking precedence over our Constitution in most areas.


Germany's voting weight on the EU Council of Ministers will rise to 17% from it's previous 8%. France's vote will go from 8% to 13% & Britain and Italy's will rise from their current 8% to 12%. However Ireland's voting weight will be halved from 2% to 0.8%.

Been debunked. If you're going to throw around myths, you could at least come up with some original ones.

3. No respect of democracy

Whether YES campaigners like it or not, most Irish people will see the ignoring of the last
vote as a disrespect of the people's will and therefore disrespect shown to democracy.

The last vote wasn't ignored - we haven't ratified the treaty.

I suppose I should get tired of refuting the same tired non-arguments over and over again, but people don't ever seem to get tired of trotting them out.

Pat Mustard

oscarBravo wrote: »

I suppose I should get tired of refuting the same tired non-arguments over and over again, but people don't ever seem to get tired of trotting them out.

I suppose I should get tired of voting to reject the same tired treaty again, but this pesky government just won't take no for an answer.

Zuiderzee

Its crap that the Government send us back to give them the answer they want - why not run the European elections again so we pick Eoin Ryan - same bloody principle.

Its undemocratic, no one else among our fellow European citizens have been given a choice in this version.
When they were given a choice, France and the Netherlands said no.
We have already said no.

Let the politicians give us a Lisbon treaty that we can understand and that we want, not what those assholes want.

And I do not believe that parliamentary ratification as a way around the issue is a democratic process as someone here suggested.

I would not vote Libertas, but they were against Lisbon.

I dont need to agree with all a parties policies, and Lisbon ratification is one of them.

P. Breathnach

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Its crap that the Government send us back to give them the answer they want - why not run the European elections again so we pick Eoin Ryan - same bloody principle.

Its undemocratic, no one else among our fellow European citizens have been given a choice in this version.
When they were given a choice, France and the Netherlands said no.
We have already said no.

Let the politicians give us a Lisbon treaty that we can understand and that we want, not what those assholes want.

And I do not believe that parliamentary ratification as a way around the issue is a democratic process as someone here suggested.

I would not vote Libertas, but they were against Lisbon.

I dont need to agree with all a parties policies, and Lisbon ratification is one of them.

It's refreshing to hear new arguments rather than the same old ones repeated once more.

KermitTheFrog

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Its crap that the Government send us back to give them the answer they want - why not run the European elections again so we pick Eoin Ryan - same bloody principle.

Its undemocratic, no one else among our fellow European citizens have been given a choice in this version.
When they were given a choice, France and the Netherlands said no.
We have already said no.

Let the politicians give us a Lisbon treaty that we can understand and that we want, not what those assholes want.

And I do not believe that parliamentary ratification as a way around the issue is a democratic process as someone here suggested.

I would not vote Libertas, but they were against Lisbon.

I dont need to agree with all a parties policies, and Lisbon ratification is one of them.

I agree wholeartedly and I will be voting NO. From what I can see from the majority of YES campaigners is that they think we owe it to the EU to vote YES. They are like lemmings charging over a cliff determined to blindly support this treaty no matter what.

oscarBravo

KermitTheFrog wrote: »

I agree wholeartedly and I will be voting NO. From what I can see from the majority of YES campaigners is that they think we owe it to the EU to vote YES. They are like lemmings charging over a cliff determined to blindly support this treaty no matter what.

Unlike those "no" campaigners who have independently and without any prompting arrived at precisely the same set of unfounded myths on which to base their objections.

KINGVictor

oscarBravo wrote: »

Unlike those "no" campaigners who have independently and without any prompting arrived at precisely the same set of unfounded myths on which to base their objections.

I dont agree with you.Some of the people opposing the Lisbon treaty are doing so, based on their personal convictions and logical conclusions as to what directions they feel would be most ideal for the concept of the EU and they feel a treaty that is going to give directives that would invariably supercede national laws would be unacceptable.

I recently have found myself working in the procurement dept of my organisation and they have to adhere to strict regulations from Brussels on how to issue tenders for contracts,deal with suppliers and conduct market engagement.
Effectively,this implies that if my Organisation wants to purchase an equipment or materials urgently..under the EU law ...as long as that product exceeds a certain amount stipulated by the EU,we are mandated to publish this at the central EU procurement website for a period of time even though we have reliable and cost effective suppliers locally.
We have to wait for quotations from Bulgaria,Poland,France etc and show we were not discriminatory in the selection process or we could be liable to sanctions or litigation .
This has a lot of red tape effects on our operations and inevitably costs us money and time.

I have not read the whole Lisbon treaty but in terms of Procurement practises it is even going to be more complex....as would a host of other processes.This does not make governance or business easier ..as variably claimed by YES campaigners.

Based on the above and other various undemocratic and ambiguious practises of the EU ...I would unrepentantly be voting NO and not be tempted otherwise because of the scaremongering of those who suggest that Ireland would be punished if we vote NO...if that is the case then that would not be a good association to belong to...They punish those who do not do as they are told...there would be very little difference between Zimbabwe/ Iran and such a body.

humanji

Where in the treaty does it refer to procurement policy?

BlitzKrieg

I dont agree with you.Some of the people opposing the Lisbon treaty are doing so, based on their personal convictions and logical conclusions as to what directions they feel would be most ideal for the concept of the EU and they feel a treaty that is going to give directives that would invariably supercede national laws would be unacceptable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TMf1pImjlE

P. Breathnach

humanji wrote: »

Where in the treaty does it refer to procurement policy?

On the same page where it deals with turf shortages.

CCCP^

I voted No last time because I felt the treaty was vague in it's language and would place too much power in the hands of a few. It's bad enough getting politicians in this country to do things right, imagine what it would be like getting Brussels to do anything?

This time around, I'm conflicted. I don't think, like some people, that are current economic condition would improve, but we don't want to get isolated, and we don't have the proper statesman who could negotiate Ireland through a No result. But then I just want to vote No because I already voted No and they've got cheek to trample on democracy like this.

KINGVictor

humanji wrote: »

Where in the treaty does it refer to procurement policy?

Article 18



The contracting authority (public body) granting the special or exclusive right (service concession) must make sure that the principle of non-discrimination is adhered to by providing for it in the granting act:



Article 3
Granting of special or exclusive rights: non-discrimination clause

Where a contracting authority grants special or exclusive rights to carry out a public service activity to an entity other than such a contracting authority, the act by which that right is granted shall provide that, in respect of the supply contracts which it awards to third parties as part of its activities, the entity concerned must comply with the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of nationality.

KermitTheFrog

CCCP^ wrote: »

But then I just want to vote No because I already voted No and they've got cheek to trample on democracy like this.

Now just sit back & wait for the few YES men on this board attempt to belittle you as if you know nothing and try tell you that the Government and the EU were democratic about it.

Imposter

humanji wrote: »

Where in the treaty does it refer to procurement policy?

To all on the yes side especially - not just Humanji - but also the No side as well:
What can someone who does not like the direction the EU is going, do to stop it from going in that direction?

For example the following arguments:
- Too much bureaucracy
- EU law superceding national law
- EU turning/turned into a political union as opposed to an economic union
- The way this political power has such little respect for results of referenda either their own or those of other countries.

KINGVictor

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TMf1pImjlE

I didnt get that...I was responding to a post that postulated that No voters are so inclined because of "myths" that didnt exist.

PopeBuckfastXVI

CCCP^ wrote: »

This time around, I'm conflicted. I don't think, like some people, that are current economic condition would improve, but we don't want to get isolated, and we don't have the proper statesman who could negotiate Ireland through a No result. But then I just want to vote No because I already voted No and they've got cheek to trample on democracy like this.

Well like you say, you are conflicted, and maybe thinking about changing your mind, as is your right. Given that, it's probably a good thing that you're being given another opportunity.

KINGVictor

P. Breathnach wrote: »

On the same page where it deals with turf shortages.

I find that actually very funny.Have you read the treaty in its entirety or this is another example of Bandwagon fallacy...because

-It seems most people are going to vote Yes ,so therefore it must be right to vote Yes...without having any personal convictions to do so.

If you dont agree with my post ...bring up your points and substantiate them instead of being sarcastic.

Zuiderzee

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's refreshing to hear new arguments rather than the same old ones repeated once more.

You asked why vote no - I gave you my reason

humanji

Imposter wrote: »

To all on the yes side especially - not just Humanji - but also the No side as well:
What can someone who does not like the direction the EU is going, do to stop it from going in that direction?

For example the following arguments:
- Too much bureaucracy
- EU law superceding national law
- EU turning/turned into a political union as opposed to an economic union
- The way this political power has such little respect for results of referenda either their own or those of other countries.

Actually, I just wanted to know about procurement as my company will benefit from it, oddly enough.

K-9

P. Breathnach wrote: »

On the same page where it deals with turf shortages.

A common energy policy is one of the best things in Lisbon and most people understand the benefits.

Imposter wrote: »

To all on the yes side especially - not just Humanji - but also the No side as well:
What can someone who does not like the direction the EU is going, do to stop it from going in that direction?

For example the following arguments:
- Too much bureaucracy
- EU law superceding national law
- EU turning/turned into a political union as opposed to an economic union
- The way this political power has such little respect for results of referenda either their own or those of other countries.

They tried to reduce bureaucracy in Lisbon with less Commissioners and look what happened.

On EU Law, how far do you want to go back?

KINGVictor

Imposter wrote: »

To all on the yes side especially - not just Humanji - but also the No side as well:
What can someone who does not like the direction the EU is going, stop it from going in that direction?

For example the following arguments:
- Too much bureaucracy
- EU law superceding national law
- EU turning/turned into a political union as opposed to an economic union
- The way this political power has such little respect for results of referenda either their own or those of other countries.

Yes it's obvious that the upcoming referendum can be seen by some as a choice between Nice or Lisbon but that's not the question i'm asking.

I think your post makes a lot of sense....

The arguements you enunciated above are very valid.


When the EC was formed ,it was initially meant to be an avenue to harness economic potentials of member countries in a harmonious fashion to increase wealth and economic growth/ development.Europe was developing and gaining prominence after the 2nd world war ...the Marshall plan of the USA to aid Europe was successful and because they were fully aware that the USA would not be a perpetual father Xmas ...it then became imperative to collectively collaborate to decide their own destiny as it were.

The EC which eventually transformed to the EU ..performed very well...with more countries joining..increased economic growth,lead to the Euro..outstanding success.Brussels then decided it could translate this into a political project..Fair ambition.

My arguement is that the way it is going about it..... is going to lead to it's implosion.

KINGVictor

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TMf1pImjlE

I profusely apologise for my earlier comments as it is apparent we are on the same page....

View

KINGVictor wrote: »

I have not read the whole Lisbon treaty but in terms of Procurement practises it is even going to be more complex....as would a host of other processes.

I am really fascinated by your claim that Lisbon will make Procurement practises more complex. I'd really appreciate it if you elaborate on this claim a bit more.

You see, I did have a look at the treaties - both post-Lisbon and post-Nice - to check out the articles you mentioned.

The first one Article 18 TFEU (post-Lisbon) has essentially just been renumbered from Article 12 TEC (post-Nice).

The second "Article 3" you refer to I can't find at all. I presume you mean Article 106 TFEU (post-Lisbon) which again is essentially Article 86 TEC (post-Nice) renumbered.

(The only changes otherwise are references in the articles have been changed to reflect the new numbering (of articles) in the treaties, plus Article 18 now had the EP as well as the Council involved in adopting rules in this area should they be necessary)

Here are the relevant articles from the post-Nice TEC, lest you have any doubts:

Article 12

Within the scope of application of this Treaty, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.

The Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251, may adopt rules designed to prohibit such discrimination.

Article 86
1. In the case of public undertakings and undertakings to which Member States grant special or exclusive rights, Member States shall neither enact nor maintain in force any measure contrary to the rules contained in this Treaty, in particular to those rules provided for in Article 12 and Articles 81 to 89.

By all means, vote No (since its pretty clear you have your mind made up in advance), but doing so isn't going to change the existing (post-Nice) EU Treaties one jot. I doubt we'll decide to leave the EU just so you and your "Organisation" will be free of the existing EU rules.

turgon

Rb wrote: »

What I was hinting at is the whole Yes side saying "THEY VOTED FOR REASONS THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TREATY!!!HURRR!!!" and then going and encouraging people to do the very same thing, only in their "sides" favour.

You are generalising the Yes side there, and if for one would not assume the gall to try to sell the Treaty on any issue does not make you position one bit better.

Rb wrote: »

I'm voting for non-treaty reasons and don't really care if people have a problem with that.

I know you dont. Thanks for putting it so clearly

Rb wrote: »

I can still demand reference to the treaty though if the Yes side want to maintain this "We voted based on what the treaty said" pretense though.

So its alright for you to not care about the content yourself, but you can demand content of the Yes side.

tonycascarino wrote: »

2. Ireland's role in Europe will diminish
3. No respect of democracy

2 is wrong; 3 has nothing to do with Lisbon. Surprise surprise.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Its crap that the Government send us back to give them the answer they want - why not run the European elections again so we pick Eoin Ryan - same bloody principle.

No. Ryan was elected out on the principle it would be five years. No one said that Lisbon wouldnt be put to electorate. Btw, given that you think that more referenda are undemocratic, should referenda be abolished altogether?

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Let the politicians give us a Lisbon treaty that we can understand and that we want, not what those assholes want.

Oh yes, no bother, lets make a treaty governing an inter-governmental organisation of 27 member states readable to the public!! Hell, lets make it 8 pages long because thats been demanded too!! Surely the current hundreds of pages can be slimed down!!!

CCCP^ wrote: »

I voted No last time because I felt the treaty was vague in it's language and would place too much power in the hands of a few.

So voted No because you felt something. Vive democracy!