My reasons for Voting No

KINGVictor

To Lisbon 11

1.I believe that The EU is consistently going outside it's scope of economic integration and increasingly becoming a political sham.

2.I believe that the EU is intrinsically made up of two axis -the franco/german and the Anglo,all fighting for political superiority at the expense of other countries.

3.I am against the imposition of Immigration and procurement directives on member countries as I believe Ireland would suffer a lot from implementation of such.

4.I also detest the manner in which is lack of consultation with the citizenry and inherently decisions made by brussels affects everyone of us in our day to day life.

5.Making Ireland vote again on the same treaty it rejected.



Open to discussion guys.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Thanks for that KV

I just want to respond to a couple of your points.

1. The EU has always been political. From day one it's been about building 'an ever closer union' of the people of Europe. However if you are against Europe as a political entity, then yes you are correct to oppose Lisbon, and probably should have opposed Nice and every other EU treaty. I'm interested to know if you consider yourself 'anti-EU' I would place this reason for voting 'no' as a generic 'anti-EU' reason.

2. I'm not sure I share your view of the Axes, especially if you are including Ireland in the Anglo(phonic?) axis. If you are talking about the UK on it's own, you are really then talking about the difficulty the UK has with sharing sovereignty with anyone. It's certainly nothing to do with Lisbon.

4. Do you feel the Dáil consults with the citizenry better than, say, the European parliament? Again, I feel this is more of a generic argument against the EU, or certainly it's institutions, than against Lisbon. In fact Lisbon allows the citizenry to have direct influence on the Commission through the petition initiative. For sure the Commission don't have to act on it, but surely they'll have to justify why they don't. It also empowers the EP in relation to the Commission, thereby increasing the channels from the Citizen to the EU (as the EP draws it's authority directly from the Citizens of Europe).

5. That was the decision of the Irish government, and no-one else. It's not really an argument against the Lisbon treaty, as much as it is an argument against the powers vested in the Irish government by the Irish constitution. A good rule of thumb might be to check if your arguments were relevant for the first referendum, and if they are still relevant for this one. I think any arguments that are not relevant to both referenda are probably more easily dismissed as side issues, arguments relevant to both force your opponents to tackle them head on.

3. I'm not touching the immigration issue

I may have you wrong, but based on the tone and content of your reasons, I'm guessing you're probably anti-EU, from a political if not economic perspective, and given that, you are probably not open to convincing of the merits of Lisbon. Voting 'No' to Lisbon is the most appropriate action for someone who is against the entire concept of a political European Union.

FutureTaoiseach

I share that analysis though not so much on Pt 4. I am unhappy with the perceived impact of the ECB interest-rate on the Irish property-bubble, but in general, I regard the EU as a good thing but in danger of losing its way. Lisbon is illegitimate in my eyes both because it is unchanged since the Irish people rejected it, and containing 95% of the provisions of the twice rejected EU Constitution (France/Holland). I share your concerns on the interference of the EU (especially the ECJ through judgements like Metock/Chen) in our immigration-laws with respect to loopholes like citizenship/residency (since addressed by the 2004 referendum) and marriages-of-convenience. I want the EU to continue and to succeed, but it must be a democratic-Europe, guided by public-opinion in terms of evolution.

marco_polo

KINGVictor wrote: »

5.Making Ireland vote again on the same treaty it rejected.

If one applied the same logic to general elections would you hold the same view?

Max Power1

marco_polo wrote: »

If one applied the same logic to general elections would you hold the same view?

General election at the end of a term in office is not a re run of the same election.

marco_polo

Max Power1 wrote: »

General election at the end of a term in office is not a re run of the same election.

Both are snapshots of the opinion of the electorate as a particular moment in time, So if the electorate is can change there mind on the direction of Government then ........

It is not a requirement of a referendum to have a different question every time.

Max Power1

marco_polo wrote: »

Both are snapshots of the opinion of the electorate as a particular moment in time, So if the electorate is can change there mind on the direction of Government then ........

It is not a requirement of a referendum to have a different question every time.

Yes but the analogy fails- they are not one and the same. Each general election presents a different list of candidates.

This is a shameless re-run of an already rejected treaty with no changes. I hope that the electorate realise this and vote no AGAIN. Maybe this time they will listen - i fear they may not.

brianthebard

marco_polo wrote: »

If one applied the same logic to general elections would you hold the same view?

That's a pretty weak argument tbh. If we're going to deal with analogies, its more like the opposition which lost the general election telling the newly elected government they have to run the election again, because they didn't get the result they wanted.

Dinner

-Howya Mick, would ye like a cup of tea?

-No thanks, there's no rich tea biscuits.

-Jim just got back from the shop with some. So would ye like a cup?

-HOW DARE YOU ASK ME AGAIN I'VE ALREADY GIVEN MY ANSWER DIDN'T I, WHY DON'T YOU LISTEN TO ME.

-Jaysus, relax mick I just thought that since the circumstances sorrounding your objection changed that you might reconsider.

-NEVAR! Don't ever ask me that question again.

ixtlan

brianthebard wrote: »

That's a pretty weak argument tbh. If we're going to deal with analogies, its more like the opposition which lost the general election telling the newly elected government they have to run the election again, because they didn't get the result they wanted.

Of course one can amusingly point out that that is exactly what the opposition are saying!

And many of the No-campaigners, and indeed many of the yes campaigners too, also seem to want another general election now, even though one is not due until 2012.

Can I take it that you are strongly of the opinion that the FF/Green government should continue to the end of their 5-year term?

Ix.

Scofflaw

brianthebard wrote: »

That's a pretty weak argument tbh. If we're going to deal with analogies, its more like the opposition which lost the general election telling the newly elected government they have to run the election again, because they didn't get the result they wanted.

And what it's a lot more like is a negotiation - the government asks us to let them ratify Lisbon, we say No, they ask why not, address some of the reasons, and ask again.

Bizarrely enough, the government thinks Lisbon is in the best interests of the country, and would rather we allowed them to ratify it rather than going back to the negotiating tables and getting what might be a worse deal.

cordially,
Scofflaw

brianthebard

ixtlan wrote: »

Of course one can amusingly point out that that is exactly what the opposition are saying!

And many of the No-campaigners, and indeed many of the yes campaigners too, also seem to want another general election now, even though one is not due until 2012.

Can I take it that you are strongly of the opinion that the FF/Green government should continue to the end of their 5-year term?

Ix.

I think you've become lost in the analogy quagmire, somewhere way off base....

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

And what it's a lot more like is a negotiation - the government asks us to let them ratify Lisbon, we say No, they ask why not, address some of the reasons, and ask again.

Bizarrely enough, the government thinks Lisbon is in the best interests of the country, and would rather we allowed them to ratify it rather than going back to the negotiating tables and getting what might be a worse deal.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So basically, we elect a Govt. for a 5 year term to do as they see fit. Basically, barring bye election defeats and a military coup, there is no way of getting rid of FF unless they decide to call a GE?

PS. It isn't very democratic is it? Ignoring Local and EU elections?

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

So basically, we elect a Govt. for a 5 year term to do as they see fit. Basically, barring bye election defeats and a military coup, there is no way of getting rid of FF unless they decide to call a GE?

A couple of other routes, at least:

1. Vote of no confidence.

2. The Greens walking out of coalition.

3. The sort of levels of passive protest and non-cooperation that make the country essentially ungovernable.

Other than that, yes, they're in until they come out. We don't elect them to "do as they see fit", though, because they need to be re-elected at the end of their term. However, we do require them, let's face it, to be able to take unpopular decisions, no? In fact, had they done so over the last decade, we'd be in better shape.

PS. It isn't very democratic is it? Ignoring Local and EU elections?

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, the local elections elect councillors, and the euro elections elect MEPs. If you take the UK, the Lib Dems win a lot of Council seats, but not many Westminster ones, so the two are different. Also, FF only lost 40 councillors, which is the same as they lost at the last local elections in 2004 - and most of the party faithful I've ever met reckon they could have avoided those losses if they hadn't dictated candidates from party HQ. Scary, but may be true!

cordially,
Scofflaw

brianthebard

To bring it back on topic, OP how do you think points one and two could be addressed to improve the situation to your liking? Would it be possible?

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

A couple of other routes, at least:

1. Vote of no confidence.

2. The Greens walking out of coalition.

3. The sort of levels of passive protest and non-cooperation that make the country essentially ungovernable.

Other than that, yes, they're in until they come out. We don't elect them to "do as they see fit", though, because they need to be re-elected at the end of their term. However, we do require them, let's face it, to be able to take unpopular decisions, no? In fact, had they done so over the last decade, we'd be in better shape.



Well, not to put too fine a point on it, the local elections elect councillors, and the euro elections elect MEPs. If you take the UK, the Lib Dems win a lot of Council seats, but not many Westminster ones, so the two are different. Also, FF only lost 40 councillors, which is the same as they lost at the last local elections in 2004 - and most of the party faithful I've ever met reckon they could have avoided those losses if they hadn't dictated candidates from party HQ. Scary, but may be true!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Indeed, was more a general point. We'd need the Independents as well, No? Berties political legacy he left us!

Back on topic, yes we elect them to do as they see fit, to a certain degree.
I'd say there is far more anger over education/health cuts and tax/pension levies, both passed and in the future, than you'll ever see over Lisbon.

PopeBuckfastXVI

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed, was more a general point. We'd need the Independents as well, No? Berties political legacy he left us!

Back on topic, yes we elect them to do as they see fit, to a certain degree.
I'd say there is far more anger over education/health cuts and tax/pension levies, both passed and in the future, than you'll ever see over Lisbon.

That's not 'on-topic' at all! Most of these posts belong in the 'politics' forum, and the rest belong in the 'why are we voting again?' thread to be honest!

Scofflaw

KINGVictor wrote: »

To Lisbon 11

1.I believe that The EU is consistently going outside it's scope of economic integration and increasingly becoming a political sham.

As has been pointed out, the EU was always political in intent. The Common Market is intended to serve the political purpose of bringing the people of Europe closer together, and always was.

2.I believe that the EU is intrinsically made up of two axis -the franco/german and the Anglo,all fighting for political superiority at the expense of other countries.

There's a lot more than that, since there are all kinds of different alliances on different things. We're with the UK on JHA matters, we're against them on farming. Also, the different axes would exist without the EU!

3.I am against the imposition of Immigration and procurement directives on member countries as I believe Ireland would suffer a lot from implementation of such.

Procurement?

4.I also detest the manner in which is lack of consultation with the citizenry and inherently decisions made by brussels affects everyone of us in our day to day life.

Certainly we appear to have no control over our government when it goes to Brussels - and that control is the heart of the German judgement. However, as the German judgement points out, that's a matter for the internal workings of the member state.

5.Making Ireland vote again on the same treaty it rejected.

I don't have a problem with it at all. Unless the referendum vote is essentially just a coin-flipping exercise, where the previous winning side fears a reversal of its gains through the operation of chance, I can't see it as 'undemocratic'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

brianthebard

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't have a problem with it at all. Unless the referendum vote is essentially just a coin-flipping exercise, where the previous winning side fears a reversal of its gains through the operation of chance, I can't see it as 'undemocratic'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I get the distinct impression you wouldn't feel that way if the Yes vote had succeeded first time around and we were still voting again. Tbh people need to drop the act, I've yet to see anyone who voted No welcome a second referendum, nor a single Yes voter state that its a bad idea. Each is as partial as the other and to pretend otherwise is silly.

marco_polo

brianthebard wrote: »

I get the distinct impression you wouldn't feel that way if the Yes vote had succeeded first time around and we were still voting again. Tbh people need to drop the act, I've yet to see anyone who voted No welcome a second referendum, nor a single Yes voter state that its a bad idea. Each is as partial as the other and to pretend otherwise is silly.

Nobody is suggesting that Yes supporters would be happy about a holding second vote in such circumstances, but the critical difference that you have missed is we would not be running around screaming 'undemocratic', 'undemocratic', when it is plainly not true.

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

... Certainly we appear to have no control over our government when it goes to Brussels - and that control is the heart of the German judgement. However, as the German judgement points out, that's a matter for the internal workings of the member state...

KINGVictor was expressing concern about decisions "made by brussels" -- by, not in. This is part of the alienation that some people feel about the EU; they see Brussels as something apart, something of an outside authority, rather than seeing it as us in partnership with our friends.

I think Scofflaw thinks in terms of decisions made in Brussels by the representatives of the member states, but correctly identifies a problem: our government does not do a good enough job of telling us about the positions it has taken and the part it has played in arriving at those decisions. In fact, it compounds the problem by choosing sometimes to blame the EU for things which are unpopular with some voters.

Perhaps we need a control function such as the Germans courts seem to be imposing on their government. No, delete "perhaps"; we do need it in order to keep our politicians honest (or should that be make our politicians honest?).

Scofflaw

brianthebard wrote: »

I get the distinct impression you wouldn't feel that way if the Yes vote had succeeded first time around and we were still voting again. Tbh people need to drop the act, I've yet to see anyone who voted No welcome a second referendum, nor a single Yes voter state that its a bad idea. Each is as partial as the other and to pretend otherwise is silly.

I wouldn't welcome a second referendum if the first had been a Yes, but I wouldn't see it as undemocratic either. I voted No at Nice 1, and had no problems with Nice 2 being 'undemocratic'. I certainly wouldn't vote No, having voted Yes, simply because I was voting again.

I have no problem with a No voter saying "it's unfair", to which I can cheerfully respond "true, but them's the breaks". Unfortunately, No voters don't say that, they say "it's undemocratic...unconstitutional...an outrage...treason...blah forced blah...", to which I say "rubbish", because none of those things are true. It's unfair, and it's happening because the government have the power to call referendums, and they think ratifying Lisbon is the right thing to do. That's all there is to it - the Yes side have that advantage, that's all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

KINGVictor was expressing concern about decisions "made by brussels" -- by, not in. This is part of the alienation that some people feel about the EU; they see Brussels as something apart, something of an outside authority, rather than seeing it as us in partnership with our friends.

I think Scofflaw thinks in terms of decisions made in Brussels by the representatives of the member states, but correctly identifies a problem: our government does not do a good enough job of telling us about the positions it has taken and the part it has played in arriving at those decisions. In fact, it compounds the problem by choosing sometimes to blame the EU for things which are unpopular with some voters.

The Water Framework Directive is the best recent example, although the Data Retention Directive is a good example too.

Perhaps we need a control function such as the Germans courts seem to be imposing on their government. No, delete "perhaps"; we do need it in order to keep our politicians honest (or should that be make our politicians honest?).

We do, I think. The subsidiarity mechanism (yellow and orange cards) in Lisbon (and not in the European Constitution) is a start, but only a start. Given the whip system, it's unlikely that the Dáil will vote against what the government proposes (the Seanad might, on recent form), but the fact that the Dail generally, rather than the government specifically, has to be informed of proposed legislation, and the fact that the Council of Ministers will have to vote in public, does mean that Lisbon provides us with certain control systems that our Republic fails to provide.

Overall, though, that's a telling point you've put your finger on - decisions are taken in Brussels, not by Brussels, and anyone who thinks the latter is giving altogether too much credit to the Belgian government.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

brianthebard wrote: »

I've yet to see anyone who voted No welcome a second referendum

You've yet to see Turgon so.

I think Scofflaw has summed it up, it's not too fair on you, it's downright annoying, in fact, but then, it is how it is.

To respond to the general argument made by some, that if it had been 'yes' would the government have given us another referendum. I can only ask, if the government was against Lisbon, would we have gotten a referendum in the first place?

Hobo Sapiens

brianthebard wrote: »

That's a pretty weak argument tbh. If we're going to deal with analogies, its more like the opposition which lost the general election telling the newly elected government they have to run the election again, because they didn't get the result they wanted.

On the contrary, it's more like the outgoing gov. losing an election but running the election again until it gets the 'right result'.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Hobo Sapiens wrote: »

On the contrary, it's more like the outgoing gov. losing an election but running the election again until it gets the 'right result'.

It's not like any of these things. The analogies just don't work.

The government have the constitutional power to hold the second referendum. No constitutional power exists to do the things in the analogies, therefore they are just not analogous.

Apologies to the OP, there are several open threads for this discussion, could one of the mods move it there, or start a new one?

Tar.Aldarion

brianthebard wrote: »

I get the distinct impression you wouldn't feel that way if the Yes vote had succeeded first time around and we were still voting again. Tbh people need to drop the act, I've yet to see anyone who voted No welcome a second referendum, nor a single Yes voter state that its a bad idea. Each is as partial as the other and to pretend otherwise is silly.

A lot of no voters said to me that they were concerned about certain things before the election, so they were voting no because they wanted a better deal, a clarification that certain things could not happen or whatever. So, say some of them have had their fears allayed in the last year, I think they should get the chance to decide. Especially as it seemed a big part of what a lot of no voters wanted in the first place. And after the first election, I would be happy with it coming back fro another vote no matter teh result, because so many people on both sides did not know what they were voting for. The amount of people here in sligo basing their vote on sligo cancer treatment issues, or just voting yes without being able to tell me why is enough of a reason for it to be brought back for me. So many silly reasons on both sides, governments fault for not making it clear I suppose.

FutureTaoiseach

Imagine how the American people would feel if they were told they had to vote again on whether Obama should be president, and that they had only voted for him because 'they didn't understand it'. They would feel insulted. And so should we because Lisbon has not changed in any way. Let's be consistent here.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Imagine how the American people would feel if they were told they had to vote again on whether Obama should be president, and that they had only voted for him because 'they didn't understand it'. They would feel insulted. And so should we because Lisbon has not changed in any way. Let's be consistent here.

There's nothing inconsistent in what we're saying, at least partly because we're not voting in an election. Elections are the cornerstone of representative democracy - the vital setting of the whole system of government. Referendums are not, because we're not a direct democracy - they're answers to Yes/No questions asked (in our system) by the government. That's all they are, and that's all they do - answer the one question that was asked with a Yes or a No. No nuances, no subtlety, no "this is really about x or y" or "we want a change of policy and/or government" - just a single answer, to the question asked, and to no other. They're not direct government by the people's vote.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ixtlan

In response to the oft repeated "if we voted yes we wouldn't vote again", I say once more.

Yes... we will...

There is always another treaty to be negotiated and ratified. If you vote yes, progress continues and you should get in contact with your MEPs and TDs to influence the direction.

I assume people said the same thing after Nice 1, in which case why are we here again after the successful Nice 2?

Ix.

turgon

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You've yet to see Turgon so.

Indeed.

I find it funny watching the debate on Boards here in light of my position on the Treaty, having changed from a No to a Yes. I didnt change my position because of the guarantees or some such, I changed because I realized the Treaty was a lot better and that what id been saying was stupid. What I find funny is that my view on most things - the legitimacy of a second referendum, the type democracy we need in Europe etc - have all changed as well. Which makes me personally believe that people don't vote No because they think a second referendum is bad, rather, they think a second referendum is bad because theyre voting No.