A Logical argument for "If you don't know, vote NO."

FeistyOneYouAre · 06-09-2009 3:05pm

My name is URL wrote: »

Well in general. Handing more power to Europe now will make it easier for them to implement further changes in future. You can say that they're not being given any further power in this treaty, but I doubt even Yes supporters believe that.

And in general these changes that will be made will be for the good. When has the EU ever sent Ireland in the wrong direction? The amount of giving out people do about our governments maybe its time to take some of the burden off them.

My name is URL · 06-09-2009 3:10pm

FeistyOneYouAre wrote: »

And in general these changes that will be made will be for the good. When has the EU ever sent Ireland in the wrong direction? The amount of giving out people do about our governments maybe its time to take some of the burden off them.

For the good of whom? If a supranational power is making decisions for us how can that be good for Ireland or any other country? It'll be good for the people making decisions, money driven decisions.

Are we really in such a bad position now that we need to forfeit control to a greedy few?

K-9 · 06-09-2009 3:32pm

My name is URL wrote: »

For the good of whom? If a supranational power is making decisions for us how can that be good for Ireland or any other country? It'll be good for the people making decisions, money driven decisions.

Are we really in such a bad position now that we need to forfeit control to a greedy few?

It already is making decisions for us. Any examples of ones bad for Ireland?

My name is URL · 06-09-2009 3:45pm

K-9 wrote: »

It already is making decisions for us. Any examples of ones bad for Ireland?

Economically, it is clear that we still benefit hugely from EU membership. I'm not against the EU at all, decisions made in Europe now have Irish input & backing, if the treaty is ratified will it be guaranteed that this is still the case?

There'll be more member states in the EC than there are commissioners by 2014, so it really can't be guaranteed.

This thread is supposed to be about people who don't know much about the treaty, any fool can see that handing more power to Europe is going to affect Ireland's voice when it comes to decision making.

meglome · 06-09-2009 3:51pm

K-9 wrote: »

It already is making decisions for us. Any examples of ones bad for Ireland?

I'd love to hear this as well. I'm seeing so much muck thrown at the EU and I can't seem to recall one bad thing the EU have actually made any EU country do.

My name is URL · 06-09-2009 3:52pm

meglome wrote: »

I'd love to hear this as well. I'm seeing so much muck thrown at the EU and I can't seem to recall one bad thing the EU have actually made any EU country do.

You can't seem to recall? How about forcing a nation to hold a referendum on something that was already voted against?

seriously

W1ct0ry · 06-09-2009 3:54pm

My name is URL wrote: »

For the good of whom? If a supranational power is making decisions for us how can that be good for Ireland or any other country? It'll be good for the people making decisions, money driven decisions.

Are we really in such a bad position now that we need to forfeit control to a greedy few?

For the good of Europe. The EU has proven its desire and ability to help the people of Europe. And it needs this treaty to continue to do so.

Who are these money driven people? Money for who? They are MEPs elected to govern by the people of Europe. So they are European.

And how are they greedy? If any country has shown itself to be greedy it is Ireland.

My name is URL wrote: »

You can't seem to recall? How about forcing a nation to hold a referendum on something that was already voted against?

seriously

Stop trolling.

meglome · 06-09-2009 3:57pm

My name is URL wrote: »

This thread is supposed to be about people who don't know much about the treaty, any fool can see that handing more power to Europe is going to affect Ireland's voice when it comes to decision making.

As has been pointed out only 20% of legislation begins at EU level the rest is negotiated in advance between the member states (I believe that's the figure anyway). And the EU has never made any EU state do anything. So it would seem to me that the chances of Ireland having to accept something that we don't agree with is very minute/completely insignificant. I honestly believe the whole idea of loss of 'sovereignty' is a non event.

meglome · 06-09-2009 4:03pm

My name is URL wrote: »

You can't seem to recall? How about forcing a nation to hold a referendum on something that was already voted against?

seriously

Do you actually even believe that rubbish? Seriously

I'll have another go at this. Our constitution allows us to have referenda on these treaty's. That same constitution allows them to be run multiple times. What you seem to be saying here is our constitution is great when it suits you to vote but it's not okay when it doesn't suit you to vote again.

My name is URL · 06-09-2009 4:09pm

meglome wrote: »

Do you actually even believe that rubbish? Seriously

I'll have another go at this. Our constitution allows us to have referenda on these treaty's. That same constitution allows them to be run multiple times. What you seem to be saying here is our constitution is great when it suits you to vote but it's not okay when it doesn't suit you to vote again.

I never said our constitution was great. It's far from great

The fact that the EU is requiring us to vote again is proof that they don't actually care about individual member states. If we vote no again will there be another referendum? What's the point in holding a referendum when the answer given by the people will not be accepted?

In future treaties, if this one is ratified, it will give a power that has shown it's disregards for public approval even more clout to do as they wish

meglome · 06-09-2009 4:19pm

My name is URL wrote: »

The fact that the EU is requiring us to vote again is proof that they don't actually care about individual member states. If we vote no again will there be another referendum? What's the point in holding a referendum when the answer given by the people will not be accepted?

In future treaties, if this one is ratified, it will give a power that has shown it's disregards for public approval even more clout to do as they wish

Woh there matey. The EU isn't requiring us to do anything, the Irish government (bad as they are) asked people why they voted No and got assurances/guarantees on those points. And that same Irish government are asking us to vote again.

I'm sorry but I just can't get my head around the issue with this new vote. The vast majority of people vote No based on not knowing what was in this treaty, or stuff that wasn't in the treaty or the commissioner. So we voted No to this treaty for reasons that had basically nothing to do with it. It makes perfect sense to explain it to people and try again to see can we get people to actually vote on the treaty.

W1ct0ry · 06-09-2009 4:20pm

My name is URL wrote: »

What's the point in holding a referendum when the answer given by the people will not be accepted?

Because it was not the answer given by the people.
25% of the voting populace voted no.

And the majority of these people voted no because they didn't know what the treaty meant and were influenced by scaremongering.

This treaty should not have been put to a public vote. It is not written for the general public and is not going to have any effect on the rights of the people of Europe.

It is a treaty that took 10 years to write, and was written by the member states of Europe, for Europe. It should have been passed by the MEPs.

FeistyOneYouAre · 06-09-2009 4:20pm

My name is URL wrote: »

There'll be more member states in the EC than there are commissioners by 2014, so it really can't be guaranteed.

Do we deserve a permanent commissioner if every other country will have their commissioner in the rota system?

W1ct0ry · 06-09-2009 4:26pm

Voting No because you don't understand is not the right choice. You are cancelling out someones vote who has done the research and made the decision that the Lisbon treaty is good.

If you do not have an opinion then spoil your vote, and let those who have feelings on the matter have their say.

K-9 · 06-09-2009 4:28pm

My name is URL wrote: »

Economically, it is clear that we still benefit hugely from EU membership. I'm not against the EU at all, decisions made in Europe now have Irish input & backing, if the treaty is ratified will it be guaranteed that this is still the case?

Why wouldn't it be? Point me out something new in the Treaty that may cause that to happen.

My name is URL wrote:

There'll be more member states in the EC than there are commissioners by 2014, so it really can't be guaranteed.

I'm sure you are well aware Commissioners act independently of each country and act in the EU's interest. Why bring this up?

My name is URL wrote:

This thread is supposed to be about people who don't know much about the treaty, any fool can see that handing more power to Europe is going to affect Ireland's voice when it comes to decision making.

Yes, any fool can point it out but nobody seems to be able to point out how we have been over ruled. QMV already exists, really it is up to you to show how QMV is so bad for Ireland, seeing as any fool can see it affects our voice. Come on, it can't be that hard, sure a fool can point it out! :eek:

My name is URL wrote: »

I never said our constitution was great. It's far from great

The fact that the EU is requiring us to vote again is proof that they don't actually care about individual member states. If we vote no again will there be another referendum? What's the point in holding a referendum when the answer given by the people will not be accepted?

In future treaties, if this one is ratified, it will give a power that has shown it's disregards for public approval even more clout to do as they wish

You know the answer to this.

You seem worried about the Commissioner. We now keep our Commissioner, surely a good thing? We have a new guarantee on taxation, surely a good thing?

Stark · 06-09-2009 4:29pm

My name is URL wrote: »

There'll be more member states in the EC than there are commissioners by 2014, so it really can't be guaranteed.

Nor can it be guaranteed under Nice. Personally I think the Commission is a bloated institution that is beginning to outlive its usefulness and the fair rota system proposed under Lisbon I was the best way forward. Unfortunately that's not what the Irish people wanted and so we'll now have the system of having to invent new commission roles for new countries if Lisbon II is voted in.

My name is URL · 06-09-2009 4:53pm

There's alot to reply to there. Let me just ask, if all member states were to hold a referendum, what would the likely outcome be?

If it was No, would it be because most of those people did not know what the treaty was about, or would it simply be a vote against change?

I understand that Yes supporters feel strongly about their stance, but it baffles me that you cannot accept that people will vote No because of legitimate reasons, and put it down to scaremongering and lack of facts.

K-9 · 06-09-2009 5:06pm

Yep, for legitimate reasons.

Though if you are against QMV because it means we could be over ruled, yet you can't point to any examples of this happening before, well................

Is that legitimate even though it is illogical?

Stark · 06-09-2009 5:06pm

My name is URL wrote:

Let me just ask, if all member states were to hold a referendum, what would the likely outcome be?

Let's just hope these people aren't allowed vote in it: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1773116

My name is URL wrote:

I understand that Yes supporters feel strongly about their stance, but it baffles me that you cannot accept that people will vote No because of legitimate reasons, and put it down to scaremongering and lack of facts.

I'm interested in hearing legitimate reasons. If people appear hostile, it's due to an awful lot of people coming in and chiming "I'm voting no because you're a **** or I can't be bothered reading it so I'm voting no". Now if someone says "I'm going to vote no because of aspect X of the treaty", then that's a different matter. I may not agree with the concerns, but I can respect them.

K-9 wrote:

Though if you are against QMV because it means we could be over ruled, yet you can't point to any examples of this happening before, well................

The thing about Lisbon is some areas move to QMV that previously required unanimous approval. However Lisbon also introduces the concept of double majority. This makes it harder for large countries to overrule small countries as not only must the majority of the EU population agree to something but also the majority of countries must agree to it (giving Ireland a much stronger weighting relevant to its population). The system under Nice gave a weighted vote to each member of EU population which was somewhat arbitrary and didn't give small countries as much power to block issues under QMV in my opinion.

FeistyOneYouAre · 06-09-2009 5:39pm

My name is URL wrote: »

There's alot to reply to there. Let me just ask, if all member states were to hold a referendum, what would the likely outcome be?

If it was No, would it be because most of those people did not know what the treaty was about, or would it simply be a vote against change?

I understand that Yes supporters feel strongly about their stance, but it baffles me that you cannot accept that people will vote No because of legitimate reasons, and put it down to scaremongering and lack of facts.

Why would you be voting about what other countries think of Lisbon? The referendum is in Ireland which means we should decide. And there are as many people voting no without a legitimate reason than those with a legitimate reason. What would the outcome be if only people who had a decent knowledge of the treaty were to vote? Nearly definitely YES.

My name is URL · 06-09-2009 5:52pm

FeistyOneYouAre wrote: »

Why would you be voting about what other countries think of Lisbon? The referendum is in Ireland which means we should decide. And there are as many people voting no without a legitimate reason than those with a legitimate reason. What would the outcome be if only people who had a decent knowledge of the treaty were to vote? Nearly definitely YES.

Fine, if that's what you think.

It's laughable to assume that those voting Yes are the only ones who understand the treaty, imo.. and also a little ignorant tbh

K-9 · 06-09-2009 5:56pm

My name is URL wrote: »

Fine, if that's what you think.

It's laughable to assume that those voting Yes are the only ones who understand the treaty, imo.. and also a little ignorant tbh

Yeah, but if you tell people who "Don't know, vote No" it is a logical assumption! :eek:

The No side can't actively look for Don't know votes and then take offence when it is pointed out 42% or whatever, didn't know and another 20/25% voted on stuff they should have known wasn't in it.

FeistyOneYouAre · 06-09-2009 6:16pm

My name is URL wrote: »

Fine, if that's what you think.

It's laughable to assume that those voting Yes are the only ones who understand the treaty, imo.. and also a little ignorant tbh

I reckon you should read it again imo... you are quite ignorant to what I said tbh

Where did I say Yes voters are the only ones who understand what the treaty is?

meglome · 06-09-2009 6:54pm

My name is URL wrote: »

There's alot to reply to there. Let me just ask, if all member states were to hold a referendum, what would the likely outcome be?

If it was No, would it be because most of those people did not know what the treaty was about, or would it simply be a vote against change?

If the treaty was voted by everyone on the basis of what was in the treaty, simply on it's merits then I'd safely say it would be a Yes vote. However given the experience of Ireland where that didn't happen it could easily be a No vote. I'd be the first to say that representative democracy is flawed and is sometimes just rule by the mob. You only have to look at the number of people that will still vote for Fianna Fail when all sense should tell them not to.

My name is URL wrote: »

I understand that Yes supporters feel strongly about their stance, but it baffles me that you cannot accept that people will vote No because of legitimate reasons, and put it down to scaremongering and lack of facts.

It's funny I didn't start off with strong feelings about this treaty. But some of my pet hates are liars and manipulators, and I've seen so much of this from the No side it has really pissed me off. Of course it happens from the Yes side too but only a fraction as much. It seems transparent to me that many No campaigners are fully aware they are not telling the truth.

I can happily accept that people will vote No for legitimate reasons. I may not agree with them but they are entitled to vote as they please. The problem with your assertion is the government asked people why they voted No, so we know why people voted No. And as you're already aware the reasons the vast majority gave were... they didn't know what was in the treaty, the commissioner or things that were not in the treaty in the first place. And in all fairness this is the worst list of reasons I've ever seen for an important vote.

A Logical argument for "If you don't know, vote NO."

Comments