Sinn Fein officially says NO to Lisbon 2.

Run_to_da_hills

Not surprising at all that Sinn Fein has stuck to its policy of last year on a NO vote. Gerry Adams correctly quoted “The people said no. Exactly the same treaty is being presented once again.” he also stated that it was a "bad treaty" and put it to the people not to be swayed by propaganda and the current economic climate.

With Libertas gone Sinn Féin now looks set to be the only remaining well financed voice in the anti-Lisbon camp.

Last year, the party’s key arguments against the treaty were claims it would end Ireland’s automatic right to a commissioner, it would erode neutrality and undermine workers’ rights.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0810/breaking1.htm

ChocolateSauce

I think it is important to have at least one mainstream party against the treaty, I just wish they'd stop claiming they're "pro-Europe" when they've voted against every single EU treaty, including our accession; I'd have more respect for them.

pokerface_me

Hate to say it folks and i'm not a Sinn Fein man, but they have got this right for me, i don't understand voting on the same thing twice. If its NO this time round, will we just keep going till it becomes a YES vote.

worldrepublic

I am pro-Europe but we should listen to what Sinn Fein have to say, especially given the role they played in the NI peace process. There has been dramatic progress in Ireland, and all parties to the peace process contributed.

PopeBuckfastXVI

pokerface_me wrote: »

Hate to say it folks and i'm not a Sinn Fein man, but they have got this right for me, i don't understand voting on the same thing twice. If its NO this time round, will we just keep going till it becomes a YES vote.

If it's yes, would you consider it legitimate?

Purple Gorilla

It's not technically the same thing though. Yes the Treaty is the same but we now have legal guarantees this time to safeguard against any of the lies Sinn Fein used last time around so why vote no?

FutureTaoiseach

Fair play to them. No means no. This is the same Treaty we rejected last year. The Government never indicated it sought renegotiation, yet it claims it was impossible. This is the Cowen that, in front of the cameras, said "sorry" (literally) to the Eurocrats after Nice I. They give the impression of being Europe's men in Ireland, rather than the other way around.

pokerface_me

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

If it's yes, would you consider it legitimate?

Yes 100%, but it was NO last time round was that not legitimate.

PopeBuckfastXVI

pokerface_me wrote: »

Yes 100%, but it was NO last time round was that not legitimate.

The 'No' last time round was legitimate, and the Lisbon treaty, as far as I'm aware, has not been ratified by Ireland.

pokerface_me

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

The 'No' last time round was legitimate, and the Lisbon treaty, as far as I'm aware, has not been ratified by Ireland.

Then why are we voting again NO means NO.

worldrepublic

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

It's not technically the same thing though. Yes the Treaty is the same but we now have legal guarantees this time to safeguard against any of the lies Sinn Fein used last time around so why vote no?

There is a debate as to whether or not the "guarantees" are worthless. In any event, can we not stick to debating the actual content of the treaty?

Purple Gorilla

pokerface_me wrote: »

Then why are we voting again NO means NO.

Because the government went out and ask people why the voted no. The majority said that they didn't know about the Treaty or voted No based on reasons that weren't even in the Treaty itself.

Is it not fair to vote again on the Treaty after they spent so much time on it and it's so integral to the future of the EU, and we just voted no because of Abortian, Euthanasia, Conscription etc? None of which are in the treaty?

Btw it's not the EU that decided to run another referendum. It was the government. And you can slag fianna fail off all you want, but Fine Gael and Labour would have done the same thing.

PopeBuckfastXVI

pokerface_me wrote: »

Then why are we voting again NO means NO.

What if the balance of opinion has changed to yes?

You say a yes vote would be 100% legitimate, how can we find out if that legitimate yes vote exists if we don't have another referendum?

pokerface_me

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

Because the government went out and ask people why the voted no. The majority said that they didn't know.

Yep i believe that, that result suits the goverment, but i don't believe the MAJORITY didn't know what they were voting for. If the MAJORITY didn't know what they were voting for, i don't believe they would have turned up on the day and voted,

PopeBuckfastXVI

pokerface_me wrote: »

Yep i believe that, that result suits the goverment, but i don't believe the MAJORITY didn't know what they were voting for. If the MAJORITY didn't know what they were voting for, i don't believe they would have turned up on the day and voted,

If the majority, understood and still believes they should vote 'No' then in the second referendum 'No' it will be.

I personally don't believe the majority of 'No' voters didn't know what they were voting for, but if say 15% did, and they learn more, and decide to vote 'Yes' then that would change the result, no?

pokerface_me

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

What if the balance of opinion has changed to yes?

You say a yes vote would be 100% legitimate, how can we find out if that legitimate yes vote exists if we don't have another referendum?

If it can back a YES vote result, it wold 1 all, so we'd have to go again.

All joking aside if it comes back YES and it is for the good of the Country i'd accept it on the chin no problem.

PopeBuckfastXVI

pokerface_me wrote: »

If it can back a YES vote result, it wold 1 all, so we'd have to go again.

All joking aside if it comes back YES and it is for the good of the Country i'd accept it on the chin no problem.

I understand how someone who voted 'no' the first time would think it not fair to vote again, but I think that if the majority would vote 'yes' in October, it would not be fair to deny them that opportunity.

Both positions are probably reasonable.

Purple Gorilla

pokerface_me wrote: »

Yep i believe that, that result suits the goverment, but i don't believe the MAJORITY didn't know what they were voting for. If the MAJORITY didn't know what they were voting for, i don't believe they would have turned up on the day and voted,

Are you really suggesting that the government fixed the poll on why people didn't vote yes? That's extremely farfetched.

I'll ask you this, if you don't know anything about the treaty, but keep on hearing about abortion, conscription etc. what would you vote?

Btw, here is the Eurobarometer poll in question which should the majority of people voted no because they did not know what they were voting on

Frankiestylee

My major problem before was with the commisioner... that's now been resolved.

Most of the other issues have been resolved. It might be the same treaty but the same anti-treaty arguments don't stand.

It's a bit like a baby refusing a dirty soother, you wash and sterilise it and the baby still refuses it... there's no longer a reason to refuse it but the baby didn't want it the first time so he doesn't want it the next time.

pokerface_me

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

Are you really suggesting that the government fixed the poll on why people didn't vote yes? That's extremely farfetched.

I'll ask you this, if you don't know anything about the treaty, but keep on hearing about abortion, conscription etc. what would you vote?

Btw, here is the Eurobarometer poll in question which should the majority of people voted no because they did not know what they were voting on

I don't think my goverment fixed anything, well i hope not. The one thing i can get over is we voted NO,certain people couldn't accept this so they are making us vote again and giving 2 fingers to all you NO voters.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

Are you really suggesting that the government fixed the poll on why people didn't vote yes? That's extremely farfetched.

I'll ask you this, if you don't know anything about the treaty, but keep on hearing about abortion, conscription etc. what would you vote?

Btw, here is the Eurobarometer poll in question which should the majority of people voted no because they did not know what they were voting on

It would be quite stupid of the Government to make up false concerns and address them, while ignoring actual concerns, as they would fail to convert anyone from a 'No' to a 'Yes'.

Purple Gorilla

pokerface_me wrote: »

I don't think my goverment fixed anything, well i hope not. The one thing i can get over is we voted NO,certain people couldn't accept this so they are making us vote again and giving 2 fingers to all you NO voters.

But they aren't! If people vote no this time again, then that's the Lisbon Treaty gone. Buried.
It's a victory for No Voters, but a huge blow to Ireland. We're basically ostricising ourselves from Europe just because they are bitter that they have to vote again. The EU have given us guarantees so we aren't voting on the same thing. We are voting on the Lisbon Treaty AND the Legal Guarantees.

So why vote no?

Purple Gorilla

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It would be quite stupid of the Government to make up false concerns and address them, while ignoring actual concerns, as they would fail to convert anyone from a 'No' to a 'Yes'.

I believe the Lisbon Treaty White Paper should address any real concerns from anyone

Scofflaw

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

Are you really suggesting that the government fixed the poll on why people didn't vote yes? That's extremely farfetched.

I'll ask you this, if you don't know anything about the treaty, but keep on hearing about abortion, conscription etc. what would you vote?

Btw, here is the Eurobarometer poll in question which should the majority of people voted no because they did not know what they were voting on

It isn't just the case that the government wouldn't benefit from fixing the poll - it's more that the polling company, whose livelihood is dependent on their reputation for objective polls, would be mad to put their name to such a fixed poll. If word gets out that they fixed a poll, they might as well close the company. The corollary is that polls not done by professional polling organisations are probably worthless.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Frankiestylee wrote: »

My major problem before was with the commisioner... that's now been resolved.

Most of the other issues have been resolved. It might be the same treaty but the same anti-treaty arguments don't stand.

It's a bit like a baby refusing a dirty soother, you wash and sterilise it and the baby still refuses it... there's no longer a reason to refuse it but the baby didn't want it the first time so he doesn't want it the next time.

It's like any negotiation. Someone offers you a deal, and you turn it down on the basis that you have certain worries about it. If the person then goes and either addresses those worries, or offers you legally binding guarantees that those worries are groundless, it doesn't seem unreasonable to open the subject of the deal again.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

pokerface_me wrote: »

Then why are we voting again NO means NO.

I hate that phrase.

Its so strong and a wonderful catchphrase.

But honestly how true is it?

No means no...

now what?

Where was the flood of alternative suggestions to lisbon?

Sinn Fein to be fair laid out a series of issues that needed to be addressed post Lisbon 1. Which a thread on which could be found here (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56293339&postcount=1)

a number of which (but not all) were addressed (retaining the Commissioner and a new protocol on irish neutrality).

But where were the many other movements that rose to the challange of Lisbon?

Libertas disapeared for six months to resurface as a European party that proceeded to get spanked in the elections. And pretty much every other group just walked away back to their own affairs.

If you vote *no* for an Irish agenda or an European agenda you should be expected to step up and show an alternative in either or both areas.


No means No....but it is not a solution.

Until some group on the *no* campaign gets that through their head, No will mean nothing.

ChocolateSauce

Regarding the No means No catchphrase, my view on it is that No does mean No- and Lisbon hasn't been ratified. A large and detailed survey after the vote demonstrated quite clearly why the vote was no: the voters had concerns about the commissioner, neutrality, abortion, taxation, and so on. Those concerns (the reason for the no vote) have been addressed to what should have been the satisfaction of the no voters, and now that it is done the people who voted no for those reasons should now logically vote yes, and this is why a second vote is not only desirable but honourable.

The alternative is living with the legacy of a No vote based ultimately on ignorance of the contents of the treaty.

ei.sdraob

people of ireland officially say NO to SF criminal "Party"

oscarBravo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

people of ireland officially say NO to SF criminal "Party"

No, seriously: don't go there.

View

I wouldn't worry too much about SF. As soon as the get to have a Minister or two in Government (my money is on that happening prior to the run up to 2016), a lot of their anti-EU rhetoric will get dumped fairly quickly. After all, if they hold their noses and work with the DUP in the institutions of NI, becoming a "born again" pro-EU party will be easy for them...

worldrepublic

I found the Sinn Fein website, they have a number of downloadable documents, including the Treaty itself, and an Alternative guide to the Lisbon Treaty.
http://www.no2lisbon.ie/en/no-2-lisbon-treaty/entry/42

I think they have distributed 500,000 newsletters so far about Lisbon Treaty, so they obviously mean business.

I've been an emphatic Yes voter.... but having just read some of their arguments, I don't know.... I'm starting to change my mind... at home here we had gotten the Government guide to the treaty in the door, but looking at the alternative guide now, well, it's not really as simple as I thought. One thing is for sure, the run up to the vote is going to be something else.