10 REAL reasons to vote NO to Lisbon

P. Breathnach

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

That's a pretty extreme opinion you have there in relation to the varied reasons put forward for a no vote. I think the irish electorate voted based on common sense more than anything. Again, I would not get stuck on the whole scientific method argument. That's okay for the laboratory, but is not a clear basis for complex political and ethical issues. Science is stunning! But it wasn't common sense that built the nuclear bomb was it?!

If you paid close attention to some of the discussions here, you would see signs of the phenomenon that ei.sdraob describes. A poster gives a reason for voting no; that reason is examined, and found to lack any foundation; so the poster substitutes another reason; that, in turn, is shown to be baseless; and, after several more rounds, it boils down to voting no because giving us the opportunity to vote is in some way undemocratic.

As for voting on the basis of common sense, what does that mean?

ButcherBoiz

Here's your answer, though the question is surprising:

common sense
noun
good sense and sound judgment in practical matters : use your common sense | [as adj. ] a common-sense approach. good sense, sense, native wit, sensibleness, judgment, levelheadedness, prudence, discernment, canniness, astuteness, shrewdness, wisdom, insight, perception, perspicacity; practicality, capability, resourcefulness, enterprise; informal horse sense, gumption, savvy, smarts, street smarts.

Other than that, refer to the original comment.


Ps. I respectfully request that this thread lightens up a bit. No sense in getting our knickers in a knot. Is there any way we can 'open up' the debate --and please don't ask me what that means!

P. Breathnach

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

Here's your answer, though the question is surprising:

common sense
noun
good sense and sound judgment in practical matters : use your common sense | [as adj. ] a common-sense approach. good sense, sense, native wit, sensibleness, judgment, levelheadedness, prudence, discernment, canniness, astuteness, shrewdness, wisdom, insight, perception, perspicacity; practicality, capability, resourcefulness, enterprise; informal horse sense, gumption, savvy, smarts, street smarts.

That is a very wide definition, and not really helpful. It also omits an important dimension of what many people mean by common sense: an appeal to some shared understanding that is presumed to exist (in other words, an unconsidered position). When people make an appeal to common sense in dealing with a complex matter, it can mean "I don't want to think about things, or explain my reasons".

Ps. I respectfully request that this thread lightens up a bit. No sense in getting our knickers in a knot. Is there any way we can 'open up' the debate --and please don't ask me what that means!

Jaysus! You are some arriviste: telling us old hands, some of whom have been here for all of six weeks already, how we should behave.

View

Freeborn John wrote: »

But not by the primary sources of political power in a democracy, i.e. the people...

This is a very interesting argument. You see most of the member states of the EU have Constitutions (whether written or unwritten) or "Basic Laws" that were drafted and approved by the politicans in their Parliaments. These (constitutions) were never put to the people of these member states in referenda.

As such, based on your argument the entire consitutions/basic laws of these member states are not "legitimate" as they have not been approved by people. This, of course, does cause a bit of a problem since just about every constitution tends to say "X is a nation" (where X is the member state in question). Therefore, it would appear based on your belief that those member states are not actually nations (since their people never actually approved the constitution that declares them to be so).

FutureTaoiseach

OscarBravo wrote:

There is a perfectly legitimate reason for opposing the Lisbon treaty: ideologically-pure nationalism - the belief that the nation-state is the perfect unit of legitimate governance, and that any supranational organisation is intrinsically wrong. It has been claimed that it is possible to be pro-EU and anti-Lisbon, but I haven't seen an honest expression of that position yet.

I strongly disagree. I support the EU like I support the Irish Constitution. If I choose to vote against a proposed amendment to the Irish Constitition, does that make me anti-Irish? Of course not. Equally then, I can oppose a change to the EU Treaties while not being opposed to the EU.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I strongly disagree. I support the EU like I support the Irish Constitution. If I choose to vote against a proposed amendment to the Irish Constitition, does that make me anti-Irish? Of course not. Equally then, I can oppose a change to the EU Treaties while not being opposed to the EU.

That depends on why you vote against the amendment. If you vote against the amendment on the basis that the Constitution ought to be scrapped and replaced, and there's no point in tinkering with it, then you're certainly anti the Constitution. Being anti the Constitution, mind you, wouldn't make you anti-Irish anyway, but believing that the EU should be scrapped and replaced undeniably makes one anti-EU, and most of those who oppose Lisbon support an EU entirely different from the one that exists.

"Anti-European" is obviously a bit trickier, since there are certainly people who oppose the creation of a European demos, and it wouldn't be unreasonable to call them anti-European. Certainly if someone opposed the existence of the Irish demos they could be reasonably called anti-Irish.

It's certainly possible to be anti-Lisbon but pro the current EU. You could oppose certain specific measures, or believe that space should not be made an EU competence. However, these positions certainly are rare - the majority of the No vote is almost certainly made up of people who have always voted No in EU referendums.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

That depends on why you vote against the amendment. If you vote against the amendment on the basis that the Constitution ought to be scrapped and replaced, and there's no point in tinkering with it, then you're certainly anti the Constitution. Being anti the Constitution, mind you, wouldn't make you anti-Irish anyway, but believing that the EU should be scrapped and replaced undeniably makes one anti-EU, and most of those who oppose Lisbon support an EU entirely different from the one that exists.

"Anti-European" is obviously a bit trickier, since there are certainly people who oppose the creation of a European demos, and it wouldn't be unreasonable to call them anti-European. Certainly if someone opposed the existence of the Irish demos they could be reasonably called anti-Irish.

It's certainly possible to be anti-Lisbon but pro the current EU. You could oppose certain specific measures, or believe that space should not be made an EU competence. However, these positions certainly are rare - the majority of the No vote is almost certainly made up of people who have always voted No in EU referendums.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Since 1987 you mean. Hardly since 1972 since 83% voted yes at that time. And I would contend that even in 1987, it was possible to vote no to the Single European Act without opposing the EEC.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Since 1987 you mean. Hardly since 1972 since 83% voted yes at that time. And I would contend that even in 1987, it was possible to vote no to the Single European Act without opposing the EEC.

There's always been around 20% of the total electorate that votes No, and the same groups have always opposed EU treaties. At Lisbon I, 28% of the electorate voted No, and 22% of them said they did so because they didn't have enough information - the residue, if you'll pardon the term, is about 22% of the electorate, which is very close to the "always votes No" core figure. If you took the government survey figure of 42% of people voting No for lack of information, you'd have about 17% of the electorate voting No for reasons other than lack of information, which is almost exactly the core No vote.

The people you're thinking of would, it seems to me, be best described by the reason "The EU does not need any fixing, it works fine", which only 1% of No voters mentioned.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's always been around 20% of the total electorate that votes No, and the same groups have always opposed EU treaties. At Lisbon I, 28% of the electorate voted No, and 22% of them said they did so because they didn't have enough information - the residue, if you'll pardon the term, is about 22% of the electorate, which is very close to the "always votes No" core figure. If you took the government survey figure of 42% of people voting No for lack of information, you'd have about 17% of the electorate voting No for reasons other than lack of information, which is almost exactly the core No vote.

The people you're thinking of would, it seems to me, be best described by the reason "The EU does not need any fixing, it works fine", which only 1% of No voters mentioned.

cordially,
Scofflaw

There is no evidence that yes voters were any less ignorant as to the contents of Lisbon. Lack of information/understanding was not there as an option for reasons for voting yes. However, reasons for voting yes such as 'EU has been good for Ireland' are obviously irrelevant to Lisbon itself. We are not voting on EU membership but on the Lisbon Treaty, something the IBEC spokespersons in particular seem to have trouble grasping. Maybe they want us to vote yes so the govt can provide them with cheap labour by signing us up to the Schengen Agreement, as provided for in Paragraph 7(ii) of the 28th Amendment to the Constitution Bill. That is my personal opinion as to one major reason why IBEC are supporting Lisbon. Might I add that the Eurobarometer poll had the lack of information figure at 22%. They can't both be right.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

There is no evidence that yes voters were any less ignorant as to the contents of Lisbon. Lack of information/understanding was not there as an option for reasons for voting yes.

First, I haven't suggested that Yes voters were any less "ignorant as to the contents of Lisbon", so don't set up straw men. Personally, I assume that the levels of knowledge were probably similar.

However, second, you've misunderstood how the surveys worked. Interviewees were not presented with a pick-list of options, but were asked, free-form, why they voted the way they voted. No Yes voter said "I voted Yes because I didn't understand it", which is why that reason does not appear for Yes voters.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

However, reasons for voting yes such as 'EU has been good for Ireland' are obviously irrelevant to Lisbon itself. We are not voting on EU membership but on the Lisbon Treaty, something the IBEC spokespersons in particular seem to have trouble grasping. Maybe they want us to vote yes so the govt can provide them with cheap labour by signing us up to the Schengen Agreement, as provided for in Paragraph 7(ii) of the 28th Amendment to the Constitution Bill. That is my personal opinion as to one major reason why IBEC are supporting Lisbon.

And an amusing take on it it is too. I have no idea why you think Schengen will provide IBEC with cheap labour, and await your explanation with the anticipation of amazement that I am beginning to reserve particularly for your explanations.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Might I add that the Eurobarometer poll had the lack of information figure at 22%. They can't both be right.

It's a fair discrepancy, certainly. It's largely explained, I suspect, by the feature I mentioned above - that there wasn't a pick-list. That means that the government survey (Millward-Brown?) put reasons given by interviewees into the box marked "lack of information" much more liberally than the Eurobarometer team. The government survey also has a category for "mentioned information or understanding", which stands at 45%.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nitrogen

Freeborn John wrote: »

This is also the opinion of leading political scientists studying the EU, such as Giandomenico Majone, as outlined in the following publication.

Not a real scientist.

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote:

And an amusing take on it it is too. I have no idea why you think Schengen will provide IBEC with cheap labour, and await your explanation with the anticipation of amazement that I am beginning to reserve particularly for your explanations.

Does it not follow that if we joined Schengen and therefore abolished systematic passport-checks for travel from the Schengen-Area into Ireland, that an increase in illegal-immigration will result from that? I am referring to illegal labour in the underground economy.

x MarK x

ei.sdraob wrote: »

how is giving more power to the directly and democratically elected representatives of the people by the people, undemocratic?

:cool:

Ya see, it becomes undemocratic, when, the Irish return a no vote, and then, the EU tell our government "thats not the right answer, go back and tell them they have to vote again". Furthermore, Irish people and politicians, now fear the EU could "punish" us with the "power" we've already given them, and through that fear, now ironically, feel they have to give them MORE power. Finally, what happened to our stronger voice in Europe, did they not "hear" our answer last time??? HHMMMM?????????

x MarK x

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not always. Where's the point in trying to find the middle ground between creationism and science?

Not everything is a matter of opinion.

I totally agree. If i were to simplify why im against Lisbon and the EU generally, it would be for simple stuff, like you mentioned. I feel it is impossible to have, so many member states, with so many different cultural backgrounds, religions, beliefs, desires, constitutions, values etc, to then try have a "one fits all" type of thing, it just wont work, period.

View

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Does it not follow that if we joined Schengen and therefore abolished systematic passport-checks for travel from the Schengen-Area into Ireland, that an increase in illegal-immigration will result from that? I am referring to illegal labour in the underground economy.

No, it doesn't follow. There is no evidence to suggest that being part of Schengen results in more or less illegal immigration or anything else than not being part of Schengen does. For instance, where is the evidence that - at the end of the day - illegal drugs are harder to obtain in Ireland than in most Schengen member states?

View

x MarK x wrote: »

I totally agree. If i were to simplify why im against Lisbon and the EU generally, it would be for simple stuff, like you mentioned. I feel it is impossible to have, so many member states, with so many different cultural backgrounds, religions, beliefs, desires, constitutions, values etc, to then try have a "one fits all" type of thing, it just wont work, period.

So, in your opinion, Switzerland just couldn't work, could it? Or Russia, Brazil, India, South Africa etc. etc.

I guess the mere fact that the EU continues to exist and work must be a serious problem for your opinion...

Kidchameleon

Hey great OP. I have a question, assuming this is all true, I just cant understand why Cowan and Co. are so desperate to get it passed, whats in it for them?

ei.sdraob

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Hey great OP. I have a question, assuming this is all true, I just cant understand why Cowan and Co. are so desperate to get it passed, whats in it for them?

a government elected by the people not to long ago,

and only a few weeks ago reinforced by people voting in Pro Lisbon and Pro EU candidates and turning noses of the eurosceptics

puts to the people (undemocracy!) a question to and a vote on future of europe and irelands place in it

seems to me like Cowen and Co are doing their job for once

but no thats probably to simple an explanation

according to some members on this forum there must be a grand conspiracy for a new world order behind all this , mind you i dont think Cowen would be capable of anything never mind a conspiracy

Kashkai

I have no axe to grind against the EU and fully acknowledge that without Cohesion Funding and European Regional Development Funding, our national infrastructure would be no where near the level it is today (i.e. roads, wastewater treatment plants, water treatment plants etc). However, this does not mean that we are forever indebted to the EU as raising our infrastructure to modern levels benefits the EU as we are a richer nation able to buy goods from our fellow EU members.

However, I have noticed from this thread that there are some posters who are so pro European that they dismiss any inkling of dissent against the great European plan. The people of Ireland were asked to vote on this treaty in June 2008 (and remember we were the only ones allowed to vote on the treaty). And as we all know, Ireland voted no. End of story??????????? Unfortunately not. The lowly plebs did not heed the dictats of the main political parties, the employers, the unions, the media etc etc etc and so we now have to be re-educated/threatened with dire consequences until we vote the way we were supposed to.

I did not vote in the last Lisbon referendum on the grounds that our political masters did a piss poor job of explaining the treaty to the populace and that a vote either way would be one made in ignorance of the ramifications of this treaty. However I will be voting in October purely on the grounds that the democratic decision of my fellow citizens has been completely ignored not only by the EU but by our own elected representatives whose job it is to represent us, not ignore us and cravenly follow the orders from the large EU superpowers, France and Germany.

I wonder if there is a close vote for yes, i.e. 50.1% yes and 49.9% against, will the government re run the treaty again on the grounds that a substantial minority of its citizens do not agree with this treaty. I think not.

Kashkai

ei.sdraob wrote: »

a government elected by the people not to long ago,

and only a few weeks ago reinforced by people voting in Pro Lisbon and Pro EU candidates and turning noses of the eurosceptics

puts to the people (undemocracy!) a question to and a vote on future of europe and irelands place in it

seems to me like Cowen and Co are doing their job for once

but no thats probably to simple an explanation

according to some members on this forum there must be a grand conspiracy for a new world order behind all this , mind you i dont think Cowen would be capable of anything never mind a conspiracy

"only a few weeks ago reinforced by people voting in Pro Lisbon and Pro EU candidates and turning noses of the eurosceptics"

What a ridiculous argument. All the main political parties are pro european and you have no choice but to vote for them or else vote for the fascist Shinners or an independent. Libertas had no hope of securing a seat as in my view, they appeared to be quite elitist and apart from the day to day concerns of the common folk. However they did some service in at least trying to provide a balanced argument against Lisbon in lieu of the completely skewed pro Lisbon propaganda from practically every echelon of our society.

View

Prosperous Dave wrote: »

"only a few weeks ago reinforced by people voting in Pro Lisbon and Pro EU candidates and turning noses of the eurosceptics"

What a ridiculous argument. All the main political parties are pro european and you have no choice but to vote for them or else vote for the fascist Shinners or an independent. Libertas had no hope of securing a seat as in my view, they appeared to be quite elitist and apart from the day to day concerns of the common folk. However they did some service in at least trying to provide a balanced argument against Lisbon in lieu of the completely skewed pro Lisbon propaganda from practically every echelon of our society.

There is nothing stopping you or anyone else from setting up an anti european political party if you so choose. Presumably, if the general populace share your views you should do quite well at the polls...

ei.sdraob

Prosperous Dave wrote: »

"only a few weeks ago reinforced by people voting in Pro Lisbon and Pro EU candidates and turning noses of the eurosceptics"

What a ridiculous argument. All the main political parties are pro european and you have no choice but to vote for them or else vote for the fascist Shinners or an independent. Libertas had no hope of securing a seat as in my view, they appeared to be quite elitist and apart from the day to day concerns of the common folk. However they did some service in at least trying to provide a balanced argument against Lisbon in lieu of the completely skewed pro Lisbon propaganda from practically every echelon of our society.

How is it ridiculous? If you had an issue with Europe and Lisbon (which you indicated you do) you could have voted for either SF or Libertas or some Independents and many people did just that

you describe SF as "fascist" and Libertas as "elitist", does that not send alarm bells ringing when the very same people contribute the core of the Anti Lisbon movement?

If you didnt vote for the above then will you be pissed of that the person you voted in will be running a Pro Lisbon campaign? you were given a vote, you cant have it both ways you know


As for your earlier rant:

are you actually gone vote based on any issue in the Treaty itself?

seems you are angry at the government (who isnt these days?) and will use your vote "hurt" them, which is very shortsighted as may endup hurting yourself and everyone else in process, not to mention you will not be voting on the damned treaty itself, talk about a waste! but then again its your vote


i am afraid we gonna hear alot of these weak excuses in coming months

hatrickpatrick

ei.sdraob wrote: »

how is giving more power to the directly and democratically elected representatives of the people by the people, undemocratic?

:cool:

Think of the National Lottery and the EuroMillions lottery.

You have a much better chance of winning the national lottery because there are fewer numbers, since your ticket isn't competing against nearly as many people as it is in EuroMillions.

On issue which affect the Irish people, ONLY Irish citizens should have a say. I don't want to see every single person in Ireland vote no to something or oppose something only to see it pass because the French or Germans have more clout than us in Europe.

Libertas said it perfectly. If your party wins a European election and takes every seat, it still only has about 13% of the seats in the European parliament. which means that even if by some miracle every Irish person votes for the same party, that party still only has 10% of the seats. Not nearly enough to actually change the course of EU policy.

I do NOT want a federal government. This is not the United States of Europe and nor should it EVER become so. We fought for INDEPENDENCE, the right to make our OWN laws. No way in hell are we going to hand that to another federal organization.

The EU is fine as an economic union and it makes a lot of sense and has worked very well. But on criminal justice and foreign policy, they have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to be involved in how the Irish behave. None.

Kashkai

View wrote: »

There is nothing stopping you or anyone else from setting up an anti european political party if you so choose. Presumably, if the general populace share your views you should do quite well at the polls...

I, and a great many of my fellow citizens, are not anti European. In fact this nation has consistently been shown through polls that we are in fact very pro European. However, as an independent, sovereign state, we are allowed (at the moment but perhaps not after Lisbon is accepted) to say no thanks to further ceding of powers to Brussels.

Why do people like yourself get so worked up at any dissent against the EU? In a democracy, we are entitled to decide what we want and if a majority says no to something, then that should be the end of it, whether you like it or not. Railing against fellow citizens for not voting your way is not democracy my friend, its more akin to fascism if not stalinist.

I wonder what would have happened if Lisbon was passed by a narrow margin last time. Would the treaty have been run again if there was a very substantial minority demanding that if more information had been supplied to the populace, then they would have gotten their "No" verdict. Somehow, I don't think so.

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

... And an amusing take on it it is too. I have no idea why you think Schengen will provide IBEC with cheap labour, and await your explanation with the anticipation of amazement that I am beginning to reserve particularly for your explanations...

Off-topic, I know, but I can't let a beautifully-constructed paragraph like that go unapplauded.

Kashkai

ei.sdraob wrote: »

How is it ridiculous? If you had an issue with Europe and Lisbon (which you indicated you do) you could have voted for either SF or Libertas or some Independents and many people did just that

you describe SF as "fascist" and Libertas as "elitist", does that not send alarm bells ringing when the very same people contribute the core of the Anti Lisbon movement?

If you didnt vote for the above then will you be pissed of that the person you voted in will be running a Pro Lisbon campaign? you were given a vote, you cant have it both ways you know


As for your earlier rant:

are you actually gone vote based on any issue in the Treaty itself?

seems you are angry at the government (who isnt these days?) and will use your vote "hurt" them, which is very shortsighted as may endup hurting yourself and everyone else in process, not to mention you will not be voting on the damned treaty itself, talk about a waste! but then again its your vote


i am afraid we gonna hear alot of these weak excuses in coming months

From reading your other posts, you appear to dismiss people who don't agree with you as being ill informed or having a rant. Hard to have a reasoned debate with someone like you, but..........

I see very little differences between our main political parties, just varying shades of grey. The fringe parties are crackpots bordering on lunacy (Shinners, Workers Party and dare I say it the Greens), so who is one supposed to cast their vote for to represent their views?

As someone who chose not to vote last year as I wasn't given enough information to make an informed decision (unlike those who voted yes or no without knowing what they were voting on), I will vote no this time on the grounds that a democratic decision of my countrymen and women was utterly ignored and cast aside as soon as the results were becoming known. The arrogance of the political parties, media, and the EU in browbeating us until they get their "correct" answer is sickening and is completely against the principles of democracy. To my mind, its like Fianna Fail losing the next election and then re running the campaign until they wear us down and we re elect them.

If you cannot have a reasoned debate without casting slurs against people who disagree with your (minority) position, then perhaps you should take a long look at your own views and see if they are democratic or fascist.

P. Breathnach

Prosperous Dave wrote: »

From reading your other posts, you appear to dismiss people who don't agree with you as being ill informed or having a rant...

Noted (emphasis added).

As someone who chose not to vote last year as I wasn't given enough information to make an informed decision...

So you voted no because you were ill informed.

I will vote no this time on the grounds that a democratic decision of my countrymen and women was utterly ignored and cast aside as soon as the results were becoming known. The arrogance of the political parties, media, and the EU in browbeating us until they get their "correct" answer is sickening and is completely against the principles of democracy. To my mind, its like Fianna Fail losing the next election and then re running the campaign until they wear us down and we re elect them.

That looks to me like a rant.

FutureTaoiseach

View wrote: »

No, it doesn't follow. There is no evidence to suggest that being part of Schengen results in more or less illegal immigration or anything else than not being part of Schengen does. For instance, where is the evidence that - at the end of the day - illegal drugs are harder to obtain in Ireland than in most Schengen member states?

It stands to reason that where there is a loophole, like the old citizenship-loophole, it will be exploited. This discussion with your reminds me of the no campaign in the Citizenship referendum, constantly demanding absolute proof the system was being abused. The clandestine nature of illegal immigration makes exact proof hard to find, but we can certainly say that many thousands of people were refused "permission to land" in Ireland by our immigration officers, and that if Schengen comes into force in Ireland, they will not longer have those powers with respect to illegals travelling here from the Schengen area.

In 2003 and 2004, 4,827 and 4,844 people were refused "permission to land". If Schengen had been in force in Ireland at the time, Ireland would not have the power to refuse those of their number travelling from Schengen countries permission to land. How many of them would have been let in under the Schengen regime is unclear, because we don't have data on their nationality. But I have no intention of voting to make it easier for illegals to enter our country. We have been generous enough in the last 10 years.

turgon

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

they will not longer have those powers with respect to illegals travelling here from the Schengen area.

Exactly. Immigration would be done on an EU wide basis, so illegals would be checked at their first Shengen Country.

FutureTaoiseach

turgon wrote: »

Exactly. Immigration would be done on an EU wide basis, so illegals would be checked at their first Shengen Country.

And those already in the Schengen area illegally would be in a position to travel to Ireland with no passport-checks. Some people will slip through the Schengen net anyway, and they will find their journey to Ireland unimpeded because of Schengen.