Yes Voters - Is there any reason you will accept to to vote no

Keewee6

im goin to vote no - not negotiateable - is there any reason you would accept and should i

a) read and vote no
b) just vote no

im voting no cos i believe it is the right thing to do

marco_polo

Keewee6 wrote: »

im goin to vote no - not negotiateable - is there any reason you would accept and should i

a) read and vote no
b) just vote no

im voting no cos i believe it is the right thing to do

Depends why you believe that.

Some what I would consider valid reason to vote know off the top of my head.

Don't like the EU in general.
Don't like new areas moving to QMV.
Don't like new competencies being added.
Don't like new voting arrangements.

Anything that is in the treaty that somebody has an objection to.

Basically anything that is not related to
No means no, referendums are undemocratic, treaty is too complex, Abortion, screw the government, tax, abortion, neutrality.

oscarBravo

Keewee6 wrote: »

im goin to vote no - not negotiateable - is there any reason you would accept and should i

a) read and vote no
b) just vote no

im voting no cos i believe it is the right thing to do

I haven't yet been presented with a reason that makes sense to me for voting "no". I've seen reasons that make sense to others - if you're opposed to the EU on basic principle, then of course it makes sense to vote "no" - but none that work for me.

Keewee6

im simply votin no because its the same treaty and if the add ons for ireland are truly democratic it should goin round the eu again - i dont care how it takes - so i will vote no

hobochris

I will be voting no as I don't like the Idea of QMV.

I know the idea is to make Europe as a whole more democratic but I am an Irish citizen first and a European citizen second, not the other way round.

I feel QMV will near silence our voice within Europe. As an Irish citizen I feel a system of 1 country 1 vote would be better for us as a smaller country. If QMV was taken out I would probably vote yes on the treaty.

Even though I'm on the no side I have to admit some people are voting no for the wrong reasons, as are some people on the yes side(We are in a global recession that this treaty cannot change and we will not be suddenly kicked out of Europe for voting no).

Riskymove

Keewee6 wrote: »

im simply votin no because its the same treaty and if the add ons for ireland are truly democratic it should goin round the eu again - i dont care how it takes - so i will vote no

what "add-ons"?

Keewee6

Riskymove wrote: »

what "add-ons"?

what ever ireland got "promised" other should have to ratify that - shouldnt they

hobochris

Keewee6 wrote: »

what ever ireland got "promised" other should have to ratify that - shouldnt they

Any chance you can rephrase that, I'm not sure what you mean..

Dinner

Keewee6 wrote: »

what ever ireland got "promised" other should have to ratify that - shouldnt they

Why would they have to ratify something that says "The Lisbon Treaty has no effect on abortion in Ireland"?

Riskymove

Keewee6 wrote: »

what ever ireland got "promised" other should have to ratify that - shouldnt they

oh you are talking about the guarantees

there is not actually anything added to the treaty so others dont need to re-ratify

the guarantees were produced as a response to certain claims/concerns people were judged to have

e.g. a claim that if we passed Lisbon we could be conscripted to a European Army, the EU are giving a guarantee that that is not the case and so on

Keewee6

Dinner wrote: »

Why would they have to ratify something that says "The Lisbon Treaty has no effect on abortion in Ireland"?

because it involves the lisbon treaty

marco_polo

Keewee6 wrote: »

im simply votin no because its the same treaty and if the add ons for ireland are truly democratic it should goin round the eu again - i dont care how it takes - so i will vote no

Now that is precisely the kind of reason I do not respect.

hobochris wrote: »

I will be voting no as I don't like the Idea of QMV.

I know the idea is to make Europe as a whole more democratic but I am an Irish citizen first and a European citizen second, not the other way round.

I feel QMV will near silence our voice within Europe. As an Irish citizen I feel a system of 1 country 1 vote would be better for us as a smaller country. If QMV was taken out I would probably vote yes on the treaty.

A view like this I respect although I do not share it. Without derailing the thread into a QMV discussion, I view QMV as a positive thing because it prevents selfish countries blocking progressive legislation in their own self interest.

For example without it the UK would have blocked vast amounts of progressive workers rights legislation that have been introduced over the years such as the Agency Workers Directive, The Working Hours Directive etc. Similar examples of attempts by countries to protect their own selfish interests are to be found across all areas where QMV is employed.

geuro

Keewee6 wrote: »

im simply votin no because its the same treaty and if the add ons for ireland are truly democratic it should goin round the eu again - i dont care how it takes - so i will vote no

Well, I don't want to be rude, but that's a lousy reason to vote no.

If you have a valid reason for voting no, based on the treaty, fair enough. But just answering no without an understanding of the question you have been asked is never a good idea.

Riskymove

Keewee6 wrote: »

because it involves the lisbon treaty

as I said the Treaty itself has not changed so the other countries dont need to re-ratify

marco_polo

Keewee6 wrote: »

what ever ireland got "promised" other should have to ratify that - shouldnt they

They did when they signed the Council Decision. That is all the action that was required.

geuro

I think Keewee6 is having a laugh

Keewee6

maybe - so ill just vote no then

ei.sdraob

geuro wrote: »

I think Keewee6 is having a laugh

we noticed

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61935498&postcount=89

geuro

ei.sdraob wrote: »

we noticed

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61935498&postcount=89

ha! bet he is voting yes..

Keewee6

geuro wrote: »

ha! bet he is voting yes..

dont think so dude sorry

ixtlan

Keewee6 wrote: »

what ever ireland got "promised" other should have to ratify that - shouldnt they

Ireland did not get any promises to change the treaty, only clarifications that the treaty did not affect certain issues that people were worried about. Since these are clarifications and not changes there is no need to modify the treaty. To be perfectly frank, I'm sure the other leaders and those who drafted the treaty are completely perplexed that for example we wanted another guarantee on abortion when there is already a clause in the treaties saying that abortion is entirely our affair.

To the more general point Keewee6 I find your post rather puzzling. You ask whether you should read and say no, or just say no. If you suggest reading then it seems you are concerned that you don't know enough about the treaty to answer someones question of why you voted no. However if this is the case I would humbly suggest that you should not be voting no, unless of course you are content to randomly cast a vote, in which case you might as well flip a coin.

Read, think, consider, and then decide, yes or no. You are of course entitled to vote no for no clear reason but that's a bit of a slap in the face to the whole concept of democracy.

The fact that it's the same treaty (with clarifications) is irrelevant if you had no opinion on the treaty the first time around. Maybe it was a good treaty for you the first time. If you have not researched it how do you know?

ix.

Keewee6

ixtlan wrote: »

Ireland did not get any promises to change the treaty, only clarifications that the treaty did not affect certain issues that people were worried about. Since these are clarifications and not changes there is no need to modify the treaty. To be perfectly frank, I'm sure the other leaders and those who drafted the treaty are completely perplexed that for example we wanted another guarantee on abortion when there is already a clause in the treaties saying that abortion is entirely our affair.

To the more general point Keewee6 I find your post rather puzzling. You ask whether you should read and say no, or just say no. If you suggest reading then it seems you are concerned that you don't know enough about the treaty to answer someones question of why you voted no. However if this is the case I would humbly suggest that you should not be voting no, unless of course you are content to randomly cast a vote, in which case you might as well flip a coin.

Read, think, consider, and then decide, yes or no. You are of course entitled to vote no for no clear reason but that's a bit of a slap in the face to the whole concept of democracy.

The fact that it's the same treaty (with clarifications) is irrelevant if you had no opinion on the treaty the first time around. Maybe it was a good treaty for you the first time. If you have not researched it how do you know?

ix.

i have thought about it and will vote no - no question what so ever - i guess there is not much point in reading it i guess - thanks for your help

ei.sdraob

Keewee6 wrote: »

i have thought about it and will vote no - no question what so ever - i guess there is not much point in reading it i guess - thanks for your help

thats the matter sorted so

"Keewee6 has spoken"

and we "respect it"

Keewee6

ei.sdraob wrote: »

thats the matter sorted so

"Keewee6 has spoken"

and we "respect it"

thanks

hobochris

marco_polo wrote: »

Now that is precisely the kind of reason I do not respect.



A view like this I respect although I do not share it. Without derailing the thread into a QMV discussion, I view QMV as a positive thing because it prevents selfish countries blocking progressive legislation in their own self interest.

For example without it the UK would have blocked vast amounts of progressive workers rights legislation that have been introduced over the years such as the Agency Workers Directive, The Working Hours Directive etc. Similar examples of attempts by countries to protect their own selfish interests are to be found across all areas where QMV is employed.

Granted it has done some good but I feel we are yet to see the other side of the coin.

If they revised it so that a two tier veto system was put in place then I'd be a little more comfortable with it, by two tier veto system I mean like the marking of the driving test where lets say for minor concerns a minor veto is can be made by a country, if there are two or less minor veto's the proposed legislation can still be passed.

Also a major veto would be in place for if a country has a serious objection, The country who lodges a major veto will then have to justify that the reason for said veto is valid, upon validation of veto, the legislation can either then be revised and put to vote again or dropped. To avoid abuse of the veto system, if a country lodges a major veto without valid justification for said veto the legislation will be re-put to vote and that country will only have a minor veto capability for the next vote.


This system may have a couple of flaws but I'm just picking out of the top of head.

oscarBravo

hobochris wrote: »

If they revised it so that a two tier veto system was put in place then I'd be a little more comfortable with it, by two tier veto system I mean like the marking of the driving test where lets say for minor concerns a minor veto is can be made by a country, if there are two or less minor veto's the proposed legislation can still be passed.

All of this misses the point that the vast, vast majority of EU legislation is made by consensus and negotiation, not by voting and vetoing.

Scofflaw

hobochris wrote: »

Granted it has done some good but I feel we are yet to see the other side of the coin.

If they revised it so that a two tier veto system was put in place then I'd be a little more comfortable with it, by two tier veto system I mean like the marking of the driving test where lets say for minor concerns a minor veto is can be made by a country, if there are two or less minor veto's the proposed legislation can still be passed.

Also a major veto would be in place for if a country has a serious objection, The country who lodges a major veto will then have to justify that the reason for said veto is valid, upon validation of veto, the legislation can either then be revised and put to vote again or dropped. To avoid abuse of the veto system, if a country lodges a major veto without valid justification for said veto the legislation will be re-put to vote and that country will only have a minor veto capability for the next vote.


This system may have a couple of flaws but I'm just picking out of the top of head.

Would you suggest it for all areas that decisions can be made through the EU, or only for certain areas? The reason I ask is that every international organisation that had national vetoes on everything has collapsed, usually without achieving anything.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Keewee6

geuro wrote: »

Well, I don't want to be rude, but that's a lousy reason to vote no.

If you have a valid reason for voting no, based on the treaty, fair enough. But just answering no without an understanding of the question you have been asked is never a good idea.

i respect that however i will vote on that very reason

ei.sdraob

Keewee6 wrote: »

i respect that however i will vote on that very reason

i dont understand the point of this thread Keewee6

are you trying to provoke some sort of reaction? rub people against the grain?

its obvious you have made up your mind for whatever reasons, so why bother with all of this?

let me turn the question at you so:


Is there any reason you will accept to to vote yes?

marco_polo

Keewee6 wrote: »

i respect that however i will vote on that very reason

Why is the default position no, out of curiousity?

Keewee6

marco_polo wrote: »

Why is the default position no, out of curiousity?

it was rejected already