2 Reasons to vote NO

Khanis

1. I'm not signing a contract I don't understand. Lord knows they've spent enough money on it so why isn't it at least as legible as the US or Irish Constitutions?

2. I honestly believe, hand on heart, that if the people of Europe had the opportunity to vote on this, that it would be rejected. Therefore I feel obligated to protect my fellow Europeans and reject this treaty.

Whilst on holidays over the last few years I have been approached by Polish, French, German and Spanish people who politely inquired whether I had voted yes or no. I told them I had voted No, and every single person shook me by the hand.

The tragedy is that there is a fantastic amount of good stuff in the treaty and if I could vote to pass the obviously beneficial parts of it then I would, but I'm not signing a blank cheque.

Max Power1

Khanis wrote: »

1. I'm not signing a contract I don't understand. Lord knows they've spent enough money on it so why isn't it at least as legible as the US or Irish Constitutions?

2. I honestly believe, hand on heart, that if the people of Europe had the opportunity to vote on this, that it would be rejected. Therefore I feel obligated to protect my fellow Europeans and reject this treaty.

Whilst on holidays over the last few years I have been approached by Polish, French, German and Spanish people who politely inquired whether I had voted yes or no. I told them I had voted No, and every single person shook me by the hand.

The tragedy is that there is a fantastic amount of good stuff in the treaty and if I could vote to pass the obviously beneficial parts of it then I would, but I'm not signing a blank cheque.

Not understanding the treaty is a reason to abstain, not vote no.

The majority of the EU would probably reject this treaty if afforded the opportunity, however this wouldnt be a reason for us to vote no

However I will be voting No again, just because I will not consent to the eradication of our right to future referenda.

PopeBuckfastXVI

I can understand the consolidated versions of the treaties, have you tried them? It's not rocket science.

I can honestly say hand on heart that I believe the lisbon treaty is good for Ireland and Europe, and so when asked for my opinion I'll give my opinion, and not what I might guess someone else's opinion is.

marco_polo

Max Power1 wrote: »

However I will be voting No again, just because I will not consent to the eradication of our right to future referenda.

Which is yet another No campaign lie.

Dinner

Khanis wrote: »

1. I'm not signing a contract I don't understand. Lord knows they've spent enough money on it so why isn't it at least as legible as the US or Irish Constitutions?

So put the effort in and understand it. As PopeBuckfast said the consolidated version isn't difficult. Or read the DFA White paper on it.

The Treaty itself is complicated because it is a complex reform treaty that has been written by 27 different parties.

Khanis wrote: »

2. I honestly believe, hand on heart, that if the people of Europe had the opportunity to vote on this, that it would be rejected. Therefore I feel obligated to protect my fellow Europeans and reject this treaty.

That is an issue for other countries to sort out themselves. It has nothing to do with either Lisbon or the EU. First thing to get the French people you meet is to get them to go out and demonstrate and try to get Sarkozy to have a referendum.

Get any German people you meet you lobby their government to change their constitution to allow binding referenda.


In my view, neither of these things are a reason to vote no, especially the first one.

PopeBuckfastXVI

marco_polo wrote: »

Which is yet another No campaign lie.

Oh gosh, I didn't even spot that!

Yes go and check out Article 48, it doesn't remove our right to referenda at all, as it says "The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.", which, as we know in Ireland, means a referendum.

Here's a link,

just do a search for 'Article 48' and read part 4...

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/st06655-re01.en08.pdf

BlitzKrieg

1. I'm not signing a contract I don't understand. Lord knows they've spent enough money on it so why isn't it at least as legible as the US or Irish Constitutions?

2 points on this.

firstly its an amendment treaty, its like getting a patch update to software and having a readme with it that lists the changes that have been made to the software, normally these dont explain much only that such and such has been removed and such and such has been boosted etc. Lisbon is the same, so the best way to read the treaty, is to read it in context, which is the consolidated version of the treaty thats widely available.

Secondly the difference between the lisbon treaty and the irish constitution is vast when you consider the role they play within the political and legal enviroment. The lisbon treaty has to balance and acknowledge the laws and constitutions of 27 states, not to mention that it has to amend in with the prior treaties and of course international organisations like the UN and Nato have to be taken into account when the document was drafted. The result is a legal minefield that requires the highest amount of legalize to navigate because it is genuinely dealing with over 30 other very powerful legal entities. Unlike the Irish and American constitution which at their drafting had to deal with the grand total of 0, the constitution defines the irish people, it writes our rights and responsibilities, there is nothing before the constitution so the writing can be very simple while lisbon has to deal with multiple other legal entities. The result is a much more complicated document. THe closest the constitution can come to being that complicated is when its amended to address the irish relationship with the EU and the UN.

Euro_Kraut

Khanis wrote: »

Whilst on holidays over the last few years I have been approached by Polish, French, German and Spanish people who politely inquired whether I had voted yes or no. I told them I had voted No, and every single person shook me by the hand.

Its is odd that a Spanish person would do that considering they voted by 77% to accept the EU constitution. I guess you just happened to meet the right people.

I think 'ordinary' Europeans feeling on the Lisbon treaty can be gauged by the performance of Libertas in the recent European Parliament elections i.e. complete indifference.

Khanis

Max Power1 wrote: »

Not understanding the treaty is a reason to abstain, not vote no.

Unfortunately, as there is no minimum voting requirement for a constitutional referendum to be deemed valid I can't just sit on the fence.

If abstention in large numbers did disqualify the vote (and come to think of it, that's an excellent notion) then I'd be all in favour of a spoiled vote on the grounds that it is incomprehensible to the average citizen.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Khanis wrote: »

If abstention in large numbers did disqualify the vote (and come to think of it, that's an excellent notion) then I'd be all in favour of a spoiled vote on the grounds that it is incomprehensible to the average citizen.

Have you tried comprehending it?

Here is an excellent RTÉ microsite, which breaks down the treaty into what it changes, and provides explanatory notes:

http://www.rte.ie/news/features/lisbontreaty/treaty_sections.html

If you have any questions, feel free to ask in this forum

AugustusMaximus

Khanis wrote: »

Unfortunately, as there is no minimum voting requirement for a constitutional referendum to be deemed valid I can't just sit on the fence.

If abstention in large numbers did disqualify the vote (and come to think of it, that's an excellent notion) then I'd be all in favour of a spoiled vote on the grounds that it is incomprehensible to the average citizen.

The treaty is very readable if you make the effort.

I thik its being used a lazy excuse by a lot of anti-EU people to vote no without even trying to understand the treaty.

Martin 2

Originally Posted by Khanis
Whilst on holidays over the last few years I have been approached by Polish, French, German and Spanish people who politely inquired whether I had voted yes or no. I told them I had voted No, and every single person shook me by the hand.

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Its is odd that a Spanish person would do that considering they voted by 77% to accept the EU constitution. I guess you just happened to meet the right people.

I think 'ordinary' Europeans feeling on the Lisbon treaty can be gauged by the performance of Libertas in the recent European Parliament elections i.e. complete indifference.

EuroKraut, it's not even that, it's common sense and human nature.

Everyone in Europe knows the majority of Irish people voted No so only a No supporter would approach an Irish person on holidays with the intention of congratulating them if they voted no. Why would a yes supporter approach an Irish person on holiday to enquire about their position on Lisbon, so they could have an argument if you had voted no, and if you voted yes what would they have to congratulate you on anyway, the treaty was rejected. Not a good basis to gauge European opinion; better to let each country decide for themselves and we decide for ourselves.

Khanis, there's still time to inform yourself and if there are things you can't understand ask somebody and if you still don't know do the decent thing and abstain

.

woodseb

Martin 2 wrote: »

Khanis, there's still time to inform yourself and if there are things you can't understand ask somebody and if you still don't know do the decent thing and abstain

.

exactly, if you can't understand it don't vote. Voting No is as arbitrary as voting Yes if you don't understand what you are voting on

ro09

There is nothing good in the Treaty except more loss of our National Identity.

Lets remember the people who gave their lives so we could make our own laws and govern our own people and be free. Why give this very same freedom away.

The government have lost all sense of Nationalism. Too Friendly now with Europe and find it hard to say no to the big boys.

Khanis

Abstention is pointless and frankly I'm getting a bit cheesed off with the "If you're too thick to understand it then abstain" remarks.

I read the original treaty, cover to cover and like 99% of people (though clearly not some of the genii on this board) found it very difficult to comprehend. I didn't read the consolidated version or the DFA version or the RTE version because that's not the version I'll be voting for and if I wanted someone else's interpretation then I wouldn't have bothered reading it in the first place.

I don't like being treated like a mushroom, and I think the European leaders were wrong to legislate what wouldn't have passed in a popular vote.

I will check out that microsite and the consolidated versions because I want to be as informed as possible, but I've heard enough spin in my lifetime to know that if you want to look yourself in the eye then you need to smell what's being shovelled, not what's been packaged.

patrickthomas

Max Power1 wrote: »

Not understanding the treaty is a reason to abstain, not vote no.

The majority of the EU would probably reject this treaty if afforded the opportunity, however this wouldnt be a reason for us to vote no

However I will be voting No again, just because I will not consent to the eradication of our right to future referenda.

No it is not a reason to abstain, it is every reason to vote for gads sake, that is why we have another vote on this and highlighting of why people voted no, not that any of the yes side seemed to get exactly why a whole lot of people are voting no.

meglome

patrickthomas wrote: »

No it is not a reason to abstain, it is every reason to vote for gads sake, that is why we have another vote on this and highlighting of why people voted no, not that any of the yes side seemed to get exactly why a whole lot of people are voting no.

Why not 'if you don't know, vote Yes'. The only logical approach is to not vote if you don't know.

Isn't it strange the No campaigns lines follow set patterns depending on the day.

bustertherat

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I can understand the consolidated versions of the treaties, have you tried them? .

would you go away out of it, those consolidated versions are completely biased towards the yes side. Do the consolidated documents mention that the treaty has not been altered in any way to appease the concerns No voters had the first time?

i will be voting No once again for numerous reasons, but mainly because we are once again voting on the exact same document. we rejected this document once already, and there has been NO changes made to it. How democratic is that? Will we keep voting until the government gets the result they want? F**k off out of it.

The term ''legal assurance'' is nothing more than a buzz phrase to pull the wool over the eyes of the irish populus, that big barrell face ba*tard from across the pond has even admitted that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHju2n5HzwQ

sink

bustertherat wrote: »

would you go away out of it, those consolidated versions are completely biased towards the yes side. Do the consolidated documents mention that the treaty has not been altered in any way to appease the concerns No voters had the first time?

That has to be the funniest and saddest thing I've ever read on this forum.

FruitLover

bustertherat wrote: »

Do the consolidated documents mention that the treaty has not been altered in any way to appease the concerns No voters had the first time?

That might be because:

A) a large proportion of 'no' voters voted 'no' because (by their own admission) they didn't even understand what they were voting on

and

any other reasons given for voting 'no' were imaginary. They didn't exist (abortion issues, militarisation concerns, etc). How can you alter something that doesn't exist?

sink

sink wrote: »

bustertherat wrote: »

would you go away out of it, those consolidated versions are completely biased towards the yes side. Do the consolidated documents mention that the treaty has not been altered in any way to appease the concerns No voters had the first time?

That has to be the funniest and saddest thing I've ever read on this forum.

I feel I must explain. The consolidated versions are what will come into effect if Lisbon is ratified, this is because Lisbon amends the current set of treaties which lay down the structure and function of the EU giving it it's legal basis. The consolidated versions PopeBuckfast refers to are the current set of treaties with the Lisbon amendments applied and are what will be the basis on how the future EU looks and operates.

To say the consolidated versions are biased towards the yes is ironically a way of saying the truth has a YES bias. But all it really is, is a massive misunderstanding through a serious lack of knowledge on your part.

It's funny because it's so breathtakingly ignorant and it is sad because unfortunately this level of ignorance is all to common.

K-9

Have to agree, if vote No if you don't understand is legitimate, so is Vote Yes and trust FG/Labour.

bustertherat

sink wrote: »

It's funny because it's so breathtakingly ignorant and it is sad because unfortunately this level of ignorance is all to common.

not quite as ignorant as your use of the oxford dictionary, hot shot...

Max Power1

ro09 wrote: »

There is nothing good in the Treaty except more loss of our National Identity.

Lets remember the people who gave their lives so we could make our own laws and govern our own people and be free. Why give this very same freedom away.

The government have lost all sense of Nationalism. Too Friendly now with Europe and find it hard to say no to the big boys.

Its BS reasoning like this that has the yes side so arrogant. Again, for what it's worth Im voting no, as I did last time. However my vote is not swayed by meaningless pseudo nationalist drivel such as the above (or the even more meaningless Good for Ireland Good for EU slogan the yes side are using)

patrickthomas wrote: »

No it is not a reason to abstain, it is every reason to vote for gads sake, that is why we have another vote on this and highlighting of why people voted no, not that any of the yes side seemed to get exactly why a whole lot of people are voting no.

Not understanding the issue would mean you shouldnt vote. In an ideal world people would have to pass a test on the issue at hand before being allowed to vote.

Mother says

It's funny reading the posts about the Lisbon treaty. Everybody talks as if there is some definitive answer as how to vote. Its madness. No one is saying 'vote on the basis of your political ideology' because Europe is ideologically bankrupt. The only arguments going around are 'it's good/not good for ireland' or 'it'll bring about a utopian society/it'll bring about a totalitarian dictatorship'.
I'll be voting No because I am a Libertarian. The Lisbon Treaty gives the European parliament more power to create legislation far away from me in Brussels. As a libertarian I am generally opposed to that sort of thing. If you are of a political ideology where you think that sort of thing is a good idea then you should vote yes.
I think the real problem comes from having an elected (and untrusted) government trying to lead the population to vote in a particular way. If they simply laid out all the facts and left people to decide for themselves i think they would be more likely to get a yes vote. I'd imagine most people in Ireland would rather have some 'genius' in Brussels do the thinking for them.

nesf

Mother says wrote: »

It's funny reading the posts about the Lisbon treaty. Everybody talks as if there is some definitive answer as how to vote. Its madness. No one is saying 'vote on the basis of your political ideology' because Europe is ideologically bankrupt. The only arguments going around are 'it's good/not good for ireland' or 'it'll bring about a utopian society/it'll bring about a totalitarian dictatorship'.
I'll be voting No because I am a Libertarian. The Lisbon Treaty gives the European parliament more power to create legislation far away from me in Brussels. As a libertarian I am generally opposed to that sort of thing. If you are of a political ideology where you think that sort of thing is a good idea then you should vote yes.

Fair enough, that's a decent ideological reason to vote No.

Mother says wrote: »

I'd imagine most people in Ireland would rather have some 'genius' in Brussels do the thinking for them.

This kind of backhand insult to people of differing ideological viewpoints isn't ok though. Please don't try to paint everyone who isn't a Libertarian into someone who doesn't want to think for themselves.

Mother says

nesf wrote: »

This kind of backhand insult to people of differing ideological viewpoints isn't ok though. Please don't try to paint everyone who isn't a Libertarian into someone who doesn't want to think for themselves.

What does it mean that it's not OK? And why infer that it's an insult? Thinking for oneself in all and every aspect of life is a lot of time and effort that no one except hermits can afford. The fact that I call myself a libertarian should show you that I don't think for myself. Libertarianism isn't an original concept that I came up with, as much as I might like to think it is.

The fact is, I imagine that most people in Ireland perceive MEPs to have some special knowledge of how best to run a society (understandably) and therefore would rather have them run the country on their behalf. When I typed thinking I meant political decision making. I didn't mean they literally wanted to vacate their own brains and become possessed by the sentience of MEPs. I probably should have typed governing. I suppose i was careless, flippant even. I'm sorry if i caused confusion.

I was trying to insult MEPs by putting genius into quotation marks. The quotation marks were meant to imply that they aren't really geniuses at all. Maybe it's not a good insult to imply that someone isn't a genius. I hope that's OK.

I guess really I should have been more careful about my post. To be honest I probably spent less than two minutes typing it.
Thanks for taking the time to evaluate my comments for me though.

Sam Vimes

bustertherat wrote: »

Do the consolidated documents mention that the treaty has not been altered in any way to appease the concerns No voters had the first time?

The vast majority of the concerns of the no voters weren't actually in the treaty so there was nothing to change

Mother says

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The vast majority of the concerns of the no voters weren't actually in the treaty so there was nothing to change

Lol, its gas isn't it? Fianna Fail waiving the assurances around like they're some kind of re-write of the treaty when all they really are is a letter from Barroso and co saying 'Eh, yeah, don't worry. None of that stuff is in there.'

I think what is happening is that Ireland is getting exposed to a level of politicking that has been the norm in central Europe for two hundred years but we have never seen.

They must think we are mad. I'm sure their main worries with most countries passing Lisbon is the consolidation of power. Then we reject it because we think they want to give us abortions. In a way they're victims of their own success. By making it so vague and undecipherable it's quite easy to read anything into it and very hard to dispel any claims made about it.

K-9

Mother says wrote: »

Lol, its gas isn't it? Fianna Fail waiving the assurances around like they're some kind of re-write of the treaty when all they really are is a letter from Barroso and co saying 'Eh, yeah, don't worry. None of that stuff is in there.'

I think what is happening is that Ireland is getting exposed to a level of politicking that has been the norm in central Europe for two hundred years but we have never seen.

They must think we are mad. I'm sure their main worries with most countries passing Lisbon is the consolidation of power. Then we reject it because we think they want to give us abortions. In a way they're victims of their own success. By making it so vague and undecipherable it's quite easy to read anything into it and very hard to dispel any claims made about it.

Nothing to do with abortions, we have guarantees on Taxation and Workers Rights. The guarantees are on the main page of this very forum, in clear, decipherable language.

Interesting that protocols, guarantees and promises have never been broken by the EU.

Scofflaw

Mother says wrote: »

It's funny reading the posts about the Lisbon treaty. Everybody talks as if there is some definitive answer as how to vote. Its madness. No one is saying 'vote on the basis of your political ideology' because Europe is ideologically bankrupt. The only arguments going around are 'it's good/not good for ireland' or 'it'll bring about a utopian society/it'll bring about a totalitarian dictatorship'.
I'll be voting No because I am a Libertarian. The Lisbon Treaty gives the European parliament more power to create legislation far away from me in Brussels. As a libertarian I am generally opposed to that sort of thing. If you are of a political ideology where you think that sort of thing is a good idea then you should vote yes.
I think the real problem comes from having an elected (and untrusted) government trying to lead the population to vote in a particular way. If they simply laid out all the facts and left people to decide for themselves i think they would be more likely to get a yes vote. I'd imagine most people in Ireland would rather have some 'genius' in Brussels do the thinking for them.

And then we have people like me who are voting yes because the Lisbon Treaty contains very very little in the way of new competences for the EU (and they're in energy, sport, tourism and space), but does contain a lot more ways for ordinary people to have EU legislation stopped, amended, or stuck down across the entire range of EU competences, plus several more ways in which our own government's actions in Europe are made accountable.

It's largely that that makes me a little tetchy with people who are voting against the power of the EU. We need this Treaty after Nice - that's we, the ordinary people. It's a counter-balance to Nice, and reduces the democratic deficit.

cordially,
Scofflaw