Lisbon 2 The Return!

PacManFan

Dinner wrote: »

This time with a better run campaign to inform the voters on what the treaty actually does. That will (hopefully!) solve the voters lack of understanding issue, while the protocols solve the issues of many other voters.

In the run up to Lisbon 1, they were too occupied with whether or not Bertie took a bribe or two back in the 90s to run a proper campaign.

Anyway, my vote's no. Supposedly, if one EU state does not ratify a treaty, then that should be it. And who's to say that if we vote no again that we won't be voting on Lisbon 3 a few months after? Seriously, why waste all this money on having a vote on something people, informed or not, already said no to? If polls showed most people only voted for Fianna Fail in the last general election because they didn't know why to vote for Fine Gael, would that have lead to another vote? Don't think so. People voted no because they didn't know why to vote yes. Simple as.

pistonsvox

My name is Mud wrote: »

*awaits rabble, and RTDH claiming that Lisbon treaty will bring crab people*

love you.

K-9

PacManFan wrote: »

In the run up to Lisbon 1, they were too occupied with whether or not Bertie took a bribe or two back in the 90s to run a proper campaign.

Anyway, my vote's no. Supposedly, if one EU state does not ratify a treaty, then that should be it.

It hasn't been ratified.

PacManFan wrote:

And who's to say that if we vote no again that we won't be voting on Lisbon 3 a few months after? Seriously, why waste all this money on having a vote on something people, informed or not, already said no to? If polls showed most people only voted for Fianna Fail in the last general election because they didn't know why to vote for Fine Gael, would that have lead to another vote? Don't think so. People voted no because they didn't know why to vote yes. Simple as.

It is unlikely, never happened before.

PacManFan

K-9 wrote: »

It hasn't been ratified.

No, but my point is that it shouldn't be either. Ireland, as a member state of the EU, said "Thanks, but no thanks". My understanding prior to voting was that if we said no, then Lisbon would be put to bed. That didn't happen. I don't remember the full ins and outs of the Nice Treaty, but IIRC, that was basically the same.

Jim236

NBB Bohs wrote: »

Because after Ireland rejected the treaty, they went about seeing why people rejected, it turns out the 'concerns' were non-existent in the treaty(conscription :rolleyes: abortion:rolleyes:) and we have been given assurances. now its up to the irish people to inform themselves of the treaty and see what happens.

Neither of those issues were brought up in the eurobarometer poll, and a lot of the issues that were brought up were directly related to the treaty such as taxation, loss of a commissioner, defence/neutrality policy, and centralisation of powers.

The abortion issue did come up at the last minute before the referendum and yes it was unrelated to the treaty, but it didn't help things when the Council of Europe told Ireland it should decriminalise abortion a few months leading up to the referendum.

If I were you NBB Bohs I'd practice what you preach and inform yourself of the issues before trying to discuss the treaty on here, because if you think the treaty was voted down because of irrelevant issues like conscription and abortion then you're very nieve.

K-9

PacManFan wrote: »

No, but my point is that it shouldn't be either. Ireland, as a member state of the EU, said "Thanks, but no thanks". My understanding prior to voting was that if we said no, then Lisbon would be put to bed. That didn't happen. I don't remember the full ins and outs of the Nice Treaty, but IIRC, that was basically the same.

And you are perfectly entitled to vote No for those reasons, if you so wish, as are the many others who will do so. I think bullying is a bit extreme though, annoying as it is.

Jim236 wrote:

Neither of those issues were brought up in the eurobarometer poll, and a lot of the issues that were brought up were directly related to the treaty such as taxation, loss of a commissioner, defence/neutrality policy, and centralisation of powers.

The abortion issue did come up at the last minute before the referendum and yes it was unrelated to the treaty, but it didn't help things when the Council of Europe told Ireland it should decriminalise abortion a few months leading up to the referendum.

If I were you NBB Bohs I'd practice what you preach and inform yourself of the issues before trying to discuss the treaty on here, because if you think the treaty was voted down because of irrelevant issues like conscription and abortion then you're very nieve.

Taxation and the Commissioner are probably the most important guarantees.

The_Minister

Ok....I was sure I posted in this thread already.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Slash/ED wrote: »

People shouldn't be allowed vote unless they educate themselves on what they're voting on. There should be an exam on the treaty and if you don't pass you don't get to vote, anyone who wouldn't pass voting for either side is doing more harm than good to the democratic process imo.

I wouldn't pass, so I wont vote.

Well this would not work. Not everyone must know everything about the treaty to vote for or against it. There might be one thing I am opposed to, why should the rest of it matter? I am voting no because of a few things, I don't care much for the rest, as these things are quite serious and have made my mind up for me.

Dinner wrote: »

It is nothing to do with being pressured.

After the first vote surveys indicated that a vast amount of no voters voted no because they didn't understand the treaty. It also showed that about a quarter did so for reasons such as neutrality, conscription, taxation, the Commissioner etc.

So the government went to the EU with these issues and negotiated the legally binding protocols. What they do is highlight what is not in the Treaty. For example it states that Lisbon has no affect on Ireland's ability to stay neutral. With these guarantees in hand, there should be no shame to run the treaty again. This time with a better run campaign to inform the voters on what the treaty actually does. That will (hopefully!) solve the voters lack of understanding issue, while the protocols solve the issues of many other voters.

Running a referendum again isn't a new idea. Denmark rejected Maastricht, so they negotiated some guarantees of their own and put it to vote again. After Nice was rejected in Ireland something similar happened.

So it isn't 'undemocratic' at all, quite the opposite. Find out the voters issues and try solve them.

You think the issues have been solved? You really believe there is a guarantee? Oh I am sure there are a lot of clauses there about these "guarantees".

The thing is, the rest of Europe were not given the chance to vote for this, due to their constitutions. If they were given the choice, they would be opposed to it.

Dinner

Miriam Warm Men wrote: »

You think the issues have been solved? You really believe there is a guarantee? Oh I am sure there are a lot of clauses there about these "guarantees".

The thing is, the rest of Europe were not given the chance to vote for this, due to their constitutions. If they were given the choice, they would be opposed to it.

I think that some of the issues that people had have been solved. They were easy to solve since they weren't in the treaty. What sort of clauses are you imagining about the protocols. Are you doubting their legality? Do you think that if Lisbon passes The EU will say 'GOTCHA! abortion actually is in the treaty!'?

Once again, the protocols explicitly state what is not in the treaty, what would there be to gain by somehow over-ruling them?

Were the Seville or Edinburgh Agreements legally binding? Have they been broken?

Miriam Warm Men wrote: »

If they were given the choice, they would be opposed to it.

Why do you say that? I believe more people voted in favour of the EU Constitution* than voted against it. So unless millions across Europe are outraged by us having a second referendum (aside from the lovely right wing groups who offered their support to Libertas) surely the EU constitution vote is the best indicator. Y'know, since it's practically identical and all.


*Which some people will gleefully point out is 90/95% the same as Lisbon

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Dinner wrote: »

I think that some of the issues that people had have been solved. They were easy to solve since they weren't in the treaty. What sort of clauses are you imagining about the protocols. Are you doubting their legality? Do you think that if Lisbon passes The EU will say 'GOTCHA! abortion actually is in the treaty!'?

Once again, the protocols explicitly state what is not in the treaty, what would there be to gain by somehow over-ruling them?

Were the Seville or Edinburgh Agreements legally binding? Have they been broken?



Why do you say that? I believe more people voted in favour of the EU Constitution* than voted against it. So unless millions across Europe are outraged by us having a second referendum (aside from the lovely right wing groups who offered their support to Libertas) surely the EU constitution vote is the best indicator. Y'know, since it's practically identical and all.


*Which some people will gleefully point out is 90/95% the same as Lisbon

It was opposed in some important countries. I don't really care for abortion, our neutrality or anything else which people seem to be worried about. I have my reasons for voting no, if I give them here you will no doubtedly say I am a sceptic bla bla bla... Just do some more research into the treaty before making any irrational decisions. It's not good for us.

K-9

Miriam Warm Men wrote: »

It was opposed in some important countries. I don't really care for abortion, our neutrality or anything else which people seem to be worried about. I have my reasons for voting no, if I give them here you will no doubtedly say I am a sceptic bla bla bla... Just do some more research into the treaty before making any irrational decisions. It's not good for us.

The Govt. can't address every No concern. They've got what they see as a good deal. If No voters still don't like Lisbon, vote No. If it's another No, a proper debate needs to be held afterwards on the general direction of the EU as most of the single issue brought up have been addressed.

granite man

K-9 wrote: »

The Govt. can't address every No concern. They've got what they see as a good deal. If No voters still don't like Lisbon, vote No. If it's another No, a proper debate needs to be held afterwards on the general direction of the EU as most of the single issue brought up have been addressed.

Federalism has neither been addressed or mentioned. The yes side is selling the positive stuff of Lisbon and choosing to ignore the real nitty gritty that many people are opposed to. They've messed up before and you can be sure they aren't telling the whole story on this. Don't trust them!

K-9

granite man wrote: »

Federalism has neither been addressed or mentioned. The yes side is selling the positive stuff of Lisbon and choosing to ignore the real nitty gritty that many people are opposed to. They've messed up before and you can be sure they aren't telling the whole story on this. Don't trust them!

The No campaigners have been wrong so many times now, don't trust them!

I find most who are opposed to Lisbon based on federalism, sovereignty etc. aren't really opposed to Lisbon, more the EU in general.

Then you have immigration, which the EU gets blamed for and our Govt. are only too happy to scapegoat them!

Firefox10

"I think that some of the issues that people had have been solved."

lol....There were no issues in the first place! I think the best solution to this is for the European commission to use glove puppets to explain the treaty to Irish people. At least to the no camp then they might understand it a bit better.:rolleyes:

Podman

Firefox10 wrote: »

I think the best solution to this is for the European commission to use glove puppets to explain the treaty to Irish people. At least to the no camp then they might understand it a bit better.:rolleyes:

sure give it a try, we Irish people love being patronized, again.
I suppose you have to do something, the bullying isn't working and those "yes" millions won't spend themselves!

FutureTaoiseach

I'm voting no because I oppose further European integration. I don't trust the elites. As for Intel, I can't help but wonder are they trying to get a more sympathetic attitude from the EU over their appeal against the fine for anti-competitive practices, or is it that they think Lisbon and possible Schengen-entry will give them a new supply of cheap labour? A side issue is that I want Cowen out. For the latter to happen, FF have to be persuaded that they won't win anything - electorally or in terms of referenda - while he is their leader. With some backbenchers circling the wagons speculating about his leadership (e.g. John McGuinness), I think a second no could be final cut.

A lesser factor is that my trust in politicians and fatcats has been destroyed by 11 years of scandalous revelations from the Tribunals, and my shock at the Irish Ferries dispute. You can say the IF issue had nothing to do with the EU. But it showed a nasty culture seeping into the Irish corporate-elites, in which workers' rights count for less and less, in pursuit of the bottom line. It's a stark contrast with the pampered public sector. I also find the 95% consensus of the politicians, media and corporate/union/farming/academic elites far too cosy and suspicious. Adam Smith's old adage springs to mind:

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter X wrote:

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices

I also fail to see the urgency for the so-called 'streamlining' in this Treaty, given that a LSE study by Helen Wallace concluded the existing arrangements are functioning fine since Enlargement. The much vaunted 'gridlock' is nonexistent.

SoupyNorman

Re-voting on the same issue reminds me of the Fr, Ted Scene where the winner of the Lovely Girls says she'll be bringing her mother to dinner and Ted says...."eh, just try that again".

Im voting no due to the government being scare mongering, arrogant asswipes and also, if the Opposition parties are so diametrically opposed to anything the current government are in favor for why then are they all of a sudden in agreement??

I think they missed a trick on the last vote for Lisbon, had Enda Kenny's mug been sporting the No vote then I think it would have tipped the balance for the yes side, I personally believe that there will be a bigger margin for the no vote this time round.

Sam Vimes

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

A side issue is that I want Cowen out. For the latter to happen, FF have to be persuaded that they won't win anything - electorally or in terms of referenda - while he is their leader.

It's called "operation cut your nose off to spite your face". I know if this was the divorce referendum I'd find out which way Brian Cowen wanted me to vote and ensure I voted the other way :rolleyes:

SoupyNorman wrote: »

Re-voting on the same issue reminds me of the Fr, Ted Scene where the winner of the Lovely Girls says she'll be bringing her mother to dinner and Ted says...."eh, just try that again".

You ask why we're being asked to vote again and then you say:

SoupyNorman wrote: »

Im voting no due to the government being scare mongering, arrogant asswipes

The Irish government has nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty. Irish politics in general has nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty. I hate them just as much as you but I realise that the government and the treaty are separate issues. If you voted last time because of your dislike of the government then you have yet to give your opinion on the Lisbon treaty, you gave your opinion on the Irish government which wasn't the question you were asked. And unfortunately it looks like you still think that the Lisbon treaty is a general election. Is it any wonder people are talking about a no vote damaging our reputation when the predominant reasons given for voting no are ones like yours that have nothing to do with the treaty and when we're effectively holding Europe to ransom because we don't like our government, yet we keep voting them back in?

edit: and let's not forget that if you do get this general election you want, unless Sinn Fein become the majority party the new government will be formed by parties that are just as pro-Lisbon. It's madness

SoupyNorman wrote: »

and also, if the Opposition parties are so diametrically opposed to anything the current government are in favor for why then are they all of a sudden in agreement??

Would you not think that maybe all the major political parties are saying that the treaty is good because it actually is good, rather than coming out against something they agree with just to give FF a bloody nose?

TheZohanS

SoupyNorman wrote: »

I think they missed a trick on the last vote for Lisbon, had Enda Kenny's mug been sporting the No vote then I think it would have tipped the balance for the yes side, I personally believe that there will be a bigger margin for the no vote this time round.

The majority of Irish politicians have their sights set on a cushy job in Brussels, if any of them are seen to support a "No" vote it will damage their reputation over there.

They all have their own agendas.

K-9

I'm voting Yes because I don't like SF in Govt. in the North.

TheZohanS

K-9 wrote: »

I'm voting Yes because I don't like SF in Govt. in the North.

At least you're honest.

K-9

TheZohan wrote: »

At least you're honest.

Martin Ferris was the deciding factor.

humanji

TheZohan wrote: »

The majority of Irish politicians have their sights set on a cushy job in Brussels, if any of them are seen to support a "No" vote it will damage their reputation over there.

They all have their own agendas.

Isn't Joe Higgin's anti-Lisbon?

tolosenc

humanji wrote: »

Isn't Joe Higgin's anti-Lisbon?

He's anti pretty much everything.

FutureTaoiseach

Sam Vimes wrote:

Is it any wonder people are talking about a no vote damaging our reputation when the predominant reasons given for voting no are ones like yours that have nothing to do with the treaty and when we're effectively holding Europe to ransom because we don't like our government, yet we keep voting them back in?

I think many - perhaps most - Europeans agree with our no vote. The Dutch and French voted no. The indecent haste with which Poland, the UK, Denmark and the Czech republic abandoned plans for a referendum on the EU Constitution after the Franco-Dutch no votes is very telling about what the elites expected could happen there too. Lisbon is part of a state-building project whereby more an more national sovereignty is incrementally given away every 4/5 years, always presented as a 'tidying up exercise'. But all those lost vetoes add up until there are few if any left.

I feel that the no voters are the real pro-Europeans because we want all Europeans in the EU to have a say on this Treaty, and to respect the rights to self-determination of the French and Dutch peoples. I regard what happened after the Franco-Dutch no votes as an exercise in cynicism and subterfuge, designed to revive the Constitution under another name, by removing symbolic matters like the flag and the anthem, renaming the provisions the Lisbon Treaty rather than the EU Constitution, and renaming the Foreign Minister the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. But the Irish people are not stupid. They can see what is going on, and they don't like it one bit. We don't appreciate being used in this way.

humanji wrote:

Isn't Joe Higgin's anti-Lisbon?

Indeed he is, yes.

dan719

Dinner wrote: »

It is nothing to do with being pressured.

After the first vote surveys indicated that a vast amount of no voters voted no because they didn't understand the treaty. It also showed that about a quarter did so for reasons such as neutrality, conscription, taxation, the Commissioner etc.

So the government went to the EU with these issues and negotiated the legally binding protocols. What they do is highlight what is not in the Treaty. For example it states that Lisbon has no affect on Ireland's ability to stay neutral. With these guarantees in hand, there should be no shame to run the treaty again. This time with a better run campaign to inform the voters on what the treaty actually does. That will (hopefully!) solve the voters lack of understanding issue, while the protocols solve the issues of many other voters.

Running a referendum again isn't a new idea. Denmark rejected Maastricht, so they negotiated some guarantees of their own and put it to vote again. After Nice was rejected in Ireland something similar happened.

So it isn't 'undemocratic' at all, quite the opposite. Find out the voters issues and try solve them.

And what about all the people who voted yes for equally 'invalid' reasons. Should we not point out this also. Perhaps we could send out leaflets saying;

'Please don't be a sheep and vote yes because the politicians told you so. Instead, inform yourself of the treaty and make a decision based on that'.

We wouldn't want to be undemocratic now would we?:rolleyes:

The attempts to justify a second referendum as democratic, amount to little more then calling 'no' voters stupid. Why don't you stop talking sh*t and tell the truth;

'We feel your opinion is of little or no value. Shut up and do what you are told'

Halla Basin

It's all very well and good to vote no if only to serve your own idea of what democracy "should" be. But fact is, voting no will be very, very bad for Ireland and voting yes will good for the EU, which is in turn pretty good for Ireland.

I won't get bogged down with the presentation of the actual facts, seeing as the crazies think their own idea of what the Lisbon Treaty and the EU is is better and more well-informed than... Well, anything really.

One note though, a study done after the voting showed that those who voted no were almost 120% more likely to be unable to answer four simple questions about the EU. 40% of them couldn't answer a single one right, whereas over half of the yes voters got three or more right. Hmmm... Perhaps the no voters completely misunderstood the Lisbon Treaty and evidently, the last 30 years of Irish history? There should be a quiz like that before every referendum, and those who fail should be denied their vote. Seriously, it's the only way to weed out the idiots who vote no for the sake of non-change.

So, yeah. Vote yes or I'll snap your skull open and **** in it.

Sam Vimes

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I think many - perhaps most - Europeans agree with our no vote. The Dutch and French voted no.

They voted no to the constitution and then the French voted in a president who openly said he would pass Lisbon.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The indecent haste with which Poland, the UK, Denmark and the Czech republic abandoned plans for a referendum on the EU Constitution after the Franco-Dutch no votes is very telling about what the elites expected could happen there too. Lisbon is part of a state-building project whereby more an more national sovereignty is incrementally given away every 4/5 years, always presented as a 'tidying up exercise'. But all those lost vetoes add up until there are few if any left.

I think it might well have been rejected if it had been put to a vote in those countries because I look at the amount of misinformation and lies being spread about it, such as the idea that the elites are engaging in a state building project against the will of the people (btw I think its hilarious that you accuse the yes side of scaremongering and then come out with something like that) and acknowledge that the people of those countries might well have believed the lies and rejected it out of fear, just like we did last time. But that's an argument for it being ratified through parliaments by people who were involved in writing it and who understand its ramifications, not putting it to people who don't have the time, the inclination or the opportunity to properly inform themselves of the issues (no opportunity because of the lies being spread that they have to pick through)

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I feel that the no voters are the real pro-Europeans because we want all Europeans in the EU to have a say on this Treaty, and to respect the rights to self-determination of the French and Dutch peoples.

I regard your insistence that other countries should change their system of government to have referenda for something that does not require it and which they normally don't have them to be telling other countries how you think they should be run. If anything you should be calling for Lisbon to pass because apparently you think it'll make it easier for nations to force their will on others as you are trying to do by withdrawing your consent until they change their ratification process

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I regard what happened after the Franco-Dutch no votes as an exercise in cynicism and subterfuge, designed to revive the Constitution under another name, by removing symbolic matters like the flag and the anthem, renaming the provisions the Lisbon Treaty rather than the EU Constitution, and renaming the Foreign Minister the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

Say the two of us were signing a contract that contained 5000 clauses and you objected to three of them. If I went back and redrew the contract with those three clauses taken out would you still refuse to sign it because the contract was "in essence" the same and would you accuse me of subterfuge for removing the only clauses that you objected to?

Sam Vimes

dan719 wrote: »

And what about all the people who voted yes for equally 'invalid' reasons. Should we not point out this also. Perhaps we could send out leaflets saying;

'Please don't be a sheep and vote yes because the politicians told you so. Instead, inform yourself of the treaty and make a decision based on that'.

We wouldn't want to be undemocratic now would we?:rolleyes:

The attempts to justify a second referendum as democratic, amount to little more then calling 'no' voters stupid. Why don't you stop talking sh*t and tell the truth;

'We feel your opinion is of little or no value. Shut up and do what you are told'

We absolutely should point out yes voters who voted for invalid reasons. The fact is that the vast majority of people on both sides had no idea what they were voting on and it is unfair to the other 500 million people of Europe to stall what they consider to be progress without a good reason. The people were asked to vote on the Lisbon treaty and we have yet to do that because people were so uninformed the last time

edit: also it's not that we consider the no voters' opinions to be of little value, it's that the majority of reasons for voting no have been proven to be fictional. That's why we got the guarantees

dan719

Halla Basin wrote: »

It's all very well and good to vote no if only to serve your own idea of what democracy "should" be. But fact is, voting no will be very, very bad for Ireland and voting yes will good for the EU, which is in turn pretty good for Ireland.

I won't get bogged down with the presentation of the actual facts, seeing as the crazies think their own idea of what the Lisbon Treaty and the EU is is better and more well-informed than... Well, anything really.

One note though, a study done after the voting showed that those who voted no were almost 120% more likely to be unable to answer four simple questions about the EU. 40% of them couldn't answer a single one right, whereas over half of the yes voters got three or more right. Hmmm... Perhaps the no voters completely misunderstood the Lisbon Treaty and evidently, the last 30 years of Irish history? There should be a quiz like that before every referendum, and those who fail should be denied their vote. Seriously, it's the only way to weed out the idiots who vote no for the sake of non-change.

So, yeah. Vote yes or I'll snap your skull open and **** in it.

Any chance of a link. Or should we just take your word for it?:rolleyes::rolleyes: