Why voting no?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Kickaha wrote: »

Yes indeedy lets delete any post or opinion that doesnt agree with ours.

I was asking for my own post to be deleted...

Scofflaw

Kickaha wrote: »

Yes indeedy lets delete any post or opinion that doesnt agree with ours.

He's requesting the deletion of his own post.

correctively,
Scofflaw

Kickaha

hmm strange..post /dont post or edit it blank would be better than trolling Id think.
But whatevers good.

bokspring71

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I'm voting no primarily because of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Lisbon I was my first no vote in an EU referendum having voted yes in the previous 3 EU referenda. At heart, I am a pro-European, but I defend vigorously my right to hold the institutions to account just as much as the Irish govt. Besides the content of Lisbon, I also have concerns about the subterfuge that was used after the French and Dutch no votes to essentially recreate the rejected EU Constitution under the guise of the Lisbon Treaty. Bertie Ahern and Brian Cowen have admitted that Lisbon is 90-5% of the rejected EU Constitution. I have moral issues about foisting a transfer of sovereignty to Brussels on nations who, in exercising their respective right to self-determination, have rejected the provisions of this Treaty in referenda. In rejecting Lisbon, we were in essence the third nation to say no to its provisions. I know that de jure, that was not the case. But in essence, it was.

I also have concerns about the Government's stated intentions to "review" the Protocol allowing Ireland to optin-out on an ad hoc basis to common policies in the area of Justice and Home Affairs, which includes sensitive areas such as policing, judicial-cooperation, asylum and immigration and border-controls. The legislation allowing for the constitutional amendment we rejected in Lisbon I included a paragraph allowing the govt, with the consent of the Oireachtas, to surrender that Protocol. Were that to happen, we would have to submit to Qualified Majority Voting on Justice and Home Affairs. That is because Justice and Home Affairs issues (covering 16 national-vetoes), is subject to Qualified Majority Voting under Lisbon, except that Ireland currently has an optout from this. I also have concerns as to how the ECJ would interpret the Charter after the Protocol is relinquished, as well as FG's opposition to the optout. A full list of surrender vetoes under the Lisbon Treaty may be found here. Bear in mind that under the Protocol, we retain the 16 Justice and Home Affairs vetoes but that the Government announced its intention to "review" it within 3 years, and that the text of the 28th amendment to the Constitution Bill (Lisbon I referendum) allowed the govt to surrender that Protocol.The relevant paragraph of the Lisbon I legislation that causes me most concern in this context is as follows:
Specific concerns of mine in relation to the Charter of Fundamental Rights include:
Having the same value as the Treaties effectively means they will override the Irish Constitution, because since 1973, the Irish Constitution has contained a provision elevating EU law to a superior position than the Constitution itself:


Article's 18 and 19 enshrine ECJ interference in our asylum-system:



Article 18 will prevent Ireland withdrawing from the Convention if we believe it is being abused for economic-migration rather than by genuine refugees. Article 19 will effectively allow the ECJ to decide what constitutes a "serious risk" to the safety of the asylum-seeker and what constitutes "inhuman and degrading treatment". Furthermore, the significance of inserting these provisions into EU law is that they come within the ECJ's jurisdiction. As such, the ECJ will be determining whether it believes we are keeping to the Convention in individual asylum-cases. In affect, for all intents and purposes, we will be adding yet another layer of asylum-appeals on top of a system that already takes years in this country. No thanks.

This is the first time the ECJ is being given jurisdiction over fundamental rights. And it is the first time in the history of the EU that the right to asylum - a right flagrantly abused for economic-migration and welfare-tourism - is being enshrined into EU law by a Treaty. Even the European Convention on Human Rights - which defenders of the Charter say the latter is based on - doesn't contain such a right. It is the height of nonsense to allow the ECJ to stick its maw into this sensitive area. There are also ethical questions in terms of the impact of the ECJ on abortion, euthanasia etc. owing to provisions in the Charter such as the right to privacy:



This can be expected to result in challenges in the ECJ on the basis that deportation of bogus asylum-seekers with children in this country would undermine "respect for family life". We have already seen attempts by illegals in this country to use the Irish Constitution's provisions on the right of the child to the 'company of its parents' to obstruct deportations from this country, and we can expect that provisions such as Article 7 of the Charter will be latched onto by asylum-lawyers as another loophole they can exploit in challenging deportations in the ECJ. Furthermore, the right to privacy was the basis of the Roe v Wade judgement in 1974 by the US Supreme Court.

For the first time, the Lisbon Treaty specifically enshrines the Charter of Fundamental Rights into EU law:




This will lead to a challenge in the ECJ to the Irish ban on employment for asylum-seekers. With the UK having an optout from the Charter, we could become the only English-speaking country in the EU to allow them to work, if the ECJ strikes down our ban.
Article's 18 and 19 enshrine ECJ interference in our asylum-system:



Article 18 will prevent Ireland withdrawing from the Convention if we believe it is being abused for economic-migration rather than by genuine refugees. Article 19 will effectively allow the ECJ to decide what constitutes a "serious risk" to the safety of the asylum-seeker and what constitutes "inhuman and degrading treatment". Furthermore, the significance of inserting these provisions into EU law is that they come within the ECJ's jurisdiction. As such, the ECJ will be determining whether it believes we are keeping to the Convention in individual asylum-cases. In affect, for all intents and purposes, we will be adding yet another layer of asylum-appeals on top of a system that already takes years in this country. No thanks.

This is the first time the ECJ is being given jurisdiction over fundamental rights. And it is the first time in the history of the EU that the right to asylum - a right flagrantly abused for economic-migration and welfare-tourism - is being enshrined into EU law by a Treaty. Even the European Convention on Human Rights - which defenders of the Charter say the latter is based on - doesn't contain such a right. It is the height of nonsense to allow the ECJ to stick its maw into this sensitive area. There are also ethical questions in terms of the impact of the ECJ on abortion, euthanasia etc. owing to provisions in the Charter such as the right to privacy:

This can be expected to result in challenges in the ECJ on the basis that deportation of bogus asylum-seekers with children in this country would undermine "respect for family life". We have already seen attempts by illegals in this country to use the Irish Constitution's provisions on the right of the child to the 'company of its parents' to obstruct deportations from this country, and we can expect that provisions such as Article 7 of the Charter will be latched onto by asylum-lawyers as another loophole they can exploit in challenging deportations in the ECJ.

This will be used by the ECJ to prevent member states from restricting marriages-of-convenience by illegal immigrants attempting to gain residency in countries like Ireland. We already have a preview of this from the Metock case (2008) where Irish law requiring non-EU spouses to have had prior residency in another EU member state as a condition of gaining residency here. The govt claims to be attempting to close the loophole, but this could well reopen it.
This will be used to challenge deportation-orders in the ECJ. I am opposed to discrimination on all those grounds except nationality, because every nation state discriminates through conferring certain rights on its citizens relative to non-citizens. That does not make such discrimination "racist". It will be argued in the ECJ that deportations are discriminatory because they are only practiced against foreign-nationals. Again, we are opening the door to abuse of our asylum system and to dictation of our asylum and citizenship laws from the ECJ in Luxembourg. Indeed it is possible these provisions will allow the ECJ to overturn the Citizenship referendum of 2004 which removed the automatic right to Irish citizenship on grounds of birth on this island. That would be another attack on democracy in addition to the disrespect shown to the Irish no vote.

I'm wondering why Scofflaw hasn't rushed in here to point out that this poster is wrong in all his assertions and that Scofflaw' intrepretation is the only correct one.

Teasingly,
Bokspring71

BlitzKrieg

cause he did it on another thread

netron

Ellie The Mess wrote: »

Yes, I know, there are probably about a million other threads on this subject but, indeed, I do feel the need to start a new one because, well, I started getting a little bit confused after, having read the 100th page on other threads, nobody had really told me what the reasons for a no vote were yet.

So I'm asking you, people of Ireland, why should an Irish person go and vote no in October even when the protocol is passed?

because i want my country to be independent and not answerable or accountable to ANYONE except the electorate of Ireland.

you've already ceded trade to unelected EU Comissioners. Lisbon will cede foreign policy. To someone like Tony Blair.

Do you really want that?

K-9

netron wrote: »

because i want my country to be independent and not answerable or accountable to ANYONE except the electorate of Ireland.

you've already ceded trade to unelected EU Comissioners. Lisbon will cede foreign policy. To someone like Tony Blair.

Do you really want that?

So, how do you make it independent and unanswerable or unaccountable to ANYONE except the electorate of Ireland?

View

K-9 wrote: »

So, how do you make it independent and unanswerable or unaccountable to ANYONE except the electorate of Ireland?

Simple, you leave the EU. Plus you tear up any and all international agreements that Ireland is party to such as the ICC, Belfast Agreement etc.

Unfortunately for Netron, the electorate for Ireland have already voted on these issues and they approve the relevant agreements (membership or otherwise). Still he lives in hope that we'll all see the light and decide to turn Ireland into the modern version of Hoxha's Albania...

RandomName2

I have to say, when looking at a documentary on the White Rose protests in Nazi Germany I found the political outlook of the proponents of fascism to be... distrubingly recognisable in today's world. Here were their main points:

1. The state is superior to the people. Citizens should thus serve the state; it is not only unpatriotic but treason to undermine the structure of the state.
2. People having a say over the direction of the state will lead to chaos.
3. A centralised organisation over a large European Empire will produce a political organism prosperous and powerful enough to face any foreign or internal adversity, and is consequently guaranteed permanence and stability (for a thousand years )

In structure there are few similarities between the EU and 3rd Reich - but if the proponents of the EU share these main tenets... hold on... can you actually see José Manuel Durão Barroso as an ubermench...? :rolleyes:

BlitzKrieg

comparing the eu to nazi germany what an original and provocative argument.

Why hadnt anyone thought of that before???

View

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

comparing the eu to nazi germany what an original and provocative argument.

Why hadnt anyone thought of that before???

It might even be a good argument were it not for the fact that modern-day neo-Nazis/National Front people seem to be invariably anti-EU. Indeed it is the parties that are Centrist (and/or Centre-Left or Centre-Right) that tend to support. It is largely the political extremes that have a problem with it.

Scofflaw

A reminder: comparison of one's bete noires to Nazi Germany/Zimbabwe/Hitler/etc is not considered discussion in this discussion forum. It's entirely meaningless unless you're really going to make a solid case for both the comparison and for the feature in common being a bad thing in itself - in which case you should simply do the latter. Nazi Germany did lots of things, like run sporting competitions, transport systems, etc etc, all of which the Irish state also does, as does every other modern state.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Parser

I'll be voting No simply because I can.

Couldn'tgivea****eabouteuropely,
Parser

Iwasfrozen

Parser wrote:

I'll be voting No simply because I can.

Couldn'tgivea****eabouteuropely,
Parser

One of the strongest arguements as to why Eugenics should be legalised.
Some people don't deserve a vote.

oscarBravo

Parser wrote: »

I'll be voting No simply because I can.

Couldn'tgivea****eabouteuropely

I couldn't give a **** about flowers, so I'll be destroying my neighbour's prize roses simply because I can.

Model citizen, me.

P. Breathnach

Parser wrote: »

I'll be voting No simply because I can.

Couldn'tgivea****eabouteuropely,
Parser

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

One of the strongest arguements as to why Eugenics should be legalised.
Some people don't deserve a vote.

It's a more honest statement than many made by no-voters. They are doing the same, and trying to rationalise it in all sorts of specious and dishonest ways.

Parser

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

One of the strongest arguements as to why Eugenics should be legalised.
Some people don't deserve a vote.

Eugenics? Some people don't deserve a vote? You sound like a Yes voter!

I'll expand what I said to make it perfectly clear

I'll be voting No simply because I can, because millions of people across Europe are being denied this right.

P. Breathnach

Parser wrote: »

... I'll be voting No simply because I can, because millions of people across Europe are being denied this right.

Oh dear. You just moved from honest to specious.

Scofflaw

Parser wrote: »

Eugenics? Some people don't deserve a vote? You sound like a Yes voter!

I'll expand what I said to make it perfectly clear

I'll be voting No simply because I can, because millions of people across Europe are being denied this right.

An argument that surely runs either way - I could say I'm voting Yes for the millions of people across Europe who would vote Yes if they had referendums.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Parser

Scofflaw wrote: »

An argument that surely runs either way

Not really no.

Is it me or do the "Yes" side on here, with their disillusionment of superior intelligence, seem quite condescending towards the "No" side?

Scofflaw

Parser wrote: »

Not really no.

Why not? After all, more people have voted Yes to Lisbon and the Constitution than voted No.

Parser wrote: »

Is it me or do the "Yes" side on here, with their disillusionment of superior intelligence, seem quite condescending towards the "No" side?

I can't really answer for anybody else - personally, I rarely intend to be condescending. I can't prevent someone feeling they're being condescended to, though - it seems to be a side-effect of trying to be polite.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sink

Parser wrote: »

Not really no.

Is it me or do the "Yes" side on here, with their disillusionment of superior intelligence, seem quite condescending towards the "No" side?

Is it me or do no voters have a tendency to possess an inferiority/persecution complex.

K-9

sink wrote: »

Is it me or do no voters have a tendency to possess/feign an inferiority/persecution complex.

Corrected that for you.

If somebody addresses a point with the same logic (as in Scofflaws post) the inferiority/persecution complex tends to come out.

"Somebody has addressed my point logically, when there is no logic to my post, so cue, foot stamping"

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

An argument that surely runs either way - I could say I'm voting Yes for the millions of people across Europe who would vote Yes if they had referendums.

cordially,
Scofflaw

But surely there is a difference. The principle that no EU treaty comes into force without at least the appearance of consent by all member nations means that Lisbon - insofar as it is 95% the same in content to the rejected EU Constitution from the French and Dutch referenda - is a violation of that principle. Now you may argue that the legal position is one where it is the legal ratification of all the member states that counts - and that is the legal position I agree. But do you not have moral questions about the morality of taking sovereignty from nations that have already, by direct popular vote, rejected 95% of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty via the EU Constitution referenda? To my mind, a nation only has the right to surrender its own sovereignty. It does not have a moral right to force other nations to do so. Yet because of the anti-democratic manner in which the EU member state governments decided to react to the Franco-Dutch no votes, we are being asked to violate that principle.

Surely a political-culture should have a moral-compass - not merely a legal-one? And surely that moral-compass should guide us to some extent as we approach a decision on how to vote in Lisbon II? Moral questions such as, for example, the right of nations to self-determination, as set out in the Charter of the United Nations. Is not the spirit of that right violated by foisting provisions on nations that they themselves have rejected by direct popular-vote?

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

But surely there is a difference. The principle that no EU treaty comes into force without at least the appearance of consent by all member nations means that Lisbon - insofar as it is 95% the same in content to the rejected EU Constitution from the French and Dutch referenda - is a violation of that principle.

First, "the appearance of consent" is not what is required, so that is a nonsense.

Second, "95% the same" means 5% different. That's quite a lot.

Zuiderzee

Scofflaw wrote: »

An argument that surely runs either way - I could say I'm voting Yes for the millions of people across Europe who would vote Yes if they had referendums.

Yes, indeed, but they dont even have a choice on Lisbon.
When the French and Dutch were given a choice, their majority no votes exceeded our population - as did their yes votes.

The point really is they no longer have a choice, and that sucks.

I am not going to trawl through this massive post but previously in this tread one thing was leveled against me.

To not have a referendum, again is undeocratic - does this mean we go back to the box continuously until we give the answer wanted by FF and FG, a bunch of corrupt muppets?
Why not, in that case, go back until we elect Ryan MEP ?

Another was a poster saying if you dont understand Lisbon, then dont vote??

I really think this is a crap arguement.

Any chance of pruning this discussion BTW?

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

Why not? After all, more people have voted Yes to Lisbon and the Constitution than voted No.

Not overtly hostile (like OscarBravo), but perhaps condescending (to give you the benefit of the doubt, unintentional).

But the argument you put forward is sophistry. I assume your cogratulations:

Scofflaw wrote: »

the vote-counting trick is very clever, well done

to me was ironic. But let me return the favour - well done, you counted in the 10 million Spanish votes. But, hell, I'll use the 'yes' side arguments here;

1. Constution has nothing at all in any way to do with Lisbon - totally different.
2. The referenda in europe (besides Ireland) were token anyway - it was a privilege, bonus, extra, superfluous (and flawed) extra.
3. The umbrella term of 'people' (the public and politicians) redirects the issue away from the legislation - the real importance lies with democratic representatives rather than the public in terms of whether a motion has any weight or validity, for only the representatives are capable of making an informed choice.

I think the eugenics 'argument' above was more convincing than one which stipulated that a yes vote could be made in support of phantom yes voters in theoretical referenda in europe. A 'no' vote is not meant to, nor can it reflect a hypothetical 'no' vote in Denmark or Hungary or Austria, but it can attack the principle whereby there is no vote granted at all. And you can attack the principle itself all you like... eugenics...

Mario007

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Yes, indeed, but they dont even have a choice on Lisbon.
When the French and Dutch were given a choice, their majority no votes exceeded our population - as did their yes votes.

The point really is they no longer have a choice, and that sucks.

I am not going to trawl through this massive post but previously in this tread one thing was leveled against me.

To not have a referendum, again is undeocratic - does this mean we go back to the box continuously until we give the answer wanted by FF and FG, a bunch of corrupt muppets?
Why not, in that case, go back until we elect Ryan MEP ?

Another was a poster saying if you dont understand Lisbon, then dont vote??

I really think this is a crap arguement.

Any chance of pruning this discussion BTW?

it doesnt suck, as you say, because in their constitutions it says they should not have a referendum, so thats an internal affair of each country, regardless of what we think of it.
what the no voters forget is that if we are to include the eu constitution referendums in, the why not count in all the 'yes' votes are well? are you saying that all the spanish people that voted yes dont deserve to be mentioned?
speaking of undemocratic, it is undemocratic to have 800 000 people postponing something that has been approved off by aroun 400 million people? i think not
i would say that having a second referendum is democratic. we could have an abortion referendum every year if the parties in the dail agreed on it, thats how the laws and democracy work. we're still entitled to vote no in each of these referndums, there is nothing stopping you from expressing your opinion again.
to be honest i would agree with such a poster, if you dont get what you're voting on, then you shouldn't vote, because effectively you're voting based on what someone else has told you, and he could be terribly wrong, you never know

Zuiderzee

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Democracy involves allowing the people make decisions.
You've been given a chance to make a decision. That's democracy.
.....But giving people another chance to vote can't be democratic!
.

It seems to me the only choice is to keep going back until we give the answer the Government want - and as for FG and increasingly Labour it is a case of tweedledum and tweedle dumber

anonymous_joe wrote: »

As ever, very few people have any reasons to vote no that are related to the treaty itself.

A lot of people posting here have points they are concerned about that are in the treaty

anonymous_joe wrote: »

My favourite is 'I don't know anything about this treaty, but I'm going to vote no because we already voted no. It's not up to me to find out anything about the treaty, instead, I'll vote no on something that I know nothing about.' If you don't understand the treaty, or don't feel you know enough about it to vote, then don't fcuking vote.

So much for democracy

anonymous_joe wrote: »

This treaty is in fact, about making the voting mechanisms of the EU fairer for all EU citizens. Not for one country over another, but for everyone. It's also attempting to make the EU a more efficient organisation.

Bollox - theres a lot more to this treaty than that, EDA, Immigration and other issues are contained

anonymous_joe wrote: »

The EU is not perfect.........Voting No because you object to Fianna Fáil, or the process of voting, etc, is silly, because you're only being asked to vote on the treaty.

No, rejecting this treaty gives us a chance to create an EU agreement that actually works for us, that is more democratic, not less.

This is our chance to get things right - not just accept a mess on the assurances of idiots like Lenahen, Cowen and Kenny.

As for the assurances on Europe from any political party, in 1997 we were promised - assured - that there was no possible way that we could join the PfP wihout a referendum.
Then in 1999 we were signed up - with no referendum - to the PfP.
Since then our involvement in PfP has been enhanced.

We cant see the future, lets learn from the past.

Again, I wish to see I am very pro EU, but against this treaty as it is obtuse and IMO a very bad deal

FutureTaoiseach

Mario007 wrote: »

it doesnt suck, as you say, because in their constitutions it says they should not have a referendum, so thats an internal affair of each country, regardless of what we think of it.
what the no voters forget is that if we are to include the eu constitution referendums in, the why not count in all the 'yes' votes are well? are you saying that all the spanish people that voted yes dont deserve to be mentioned?
speaking of undemocratic, it is undemocratic to have 800 000 people postponing something that has been approved off by aroun 400 million people? i think not
i would say that having a second referendum is democratic. we could have an abortion referendum every year if the parties in the dail agreed on it, thats how the laws and democracy work. we're still entitled to vote no in each of these referndums, there is nothing stopping you from expressing your opinion again.
to be honest i would agree with such a poster, if you dont get what you're voting on, then you shouldn't vote, because effectively you're voting based on what someone else has told you, and he could be terribly wrong, you never know

As I said before. The difference between how the yes and no votes should be regarded as follows: no nation has the moral right to force another to surrender sovereignty against its will. It is true that there isn't the same tradition of direct-democracy in most other EU member states as we have in Ireland. Nonetheless, having asked their respective peoples in referenda in the first place, it was a betrayal of the Franco-Dutch govts to come back with an almost identical treaty and to refuse to put it directly to their peoples. When your actions directly take something from others, it becomes their business. At least with respect to Spain and Luxembourg, it cannot be said that Lisbon not coming into force will take something from them. A no vote will mean the constitutional status-quo in Europe. A yes vote, on the other hand, will mean the French and Dutch peoples having 95% of the provisions they rejected by referenda in 2005 foisted on them anyway - admittedly with the collusion of their politicians. But the govts of those countries cannot claim a mandate to so defy their respective electorates. The EU Constitution had not been recycled into Lisbon when Sarkozy stood for the Presidency in Summer 2007. He promised a "mini-treaty" but wasn't specific on what it would contain. Likewise, the Dutch govt had no mandate for parliamentary ratification of an almost identical treaty.

You repeat the yes campaign mantras that confuse the legal with the moral. Just because ratification without referendum and forcing something on nations that when asked voted no is acceptable in the eyes of the law does not make it morally acceptable. To my mind it represents an attack on democracy which, if successfully, will further encourage the political-class to encourage public opinion when it disagrees with them on issues. This is not desirable in my opinion. I refuse to be talked down to by the elites. I have every right to say no to the surrender of Irish sovereignty and am very proud to have done so.