I'm voting 'no' for one reason only...

StealthRolex

Deleted User wrote: »

i can't believe you have the same voting rights as intelligent people.. it sickens me to think that your opinion is counted as equal to someone who votes with some legitimate reason behind their vote.

You'll have to vote No then because the Charter of Fundamental Rights will become law if this treaty is ratified and the right to freedom of expression and freedom to vote will them be enshrined in law until the QMV is invoked to restrict the counting of the opinions of certain people.

This is still a free country with freedom of expression guaranteed.

This is still a free country where those who choose to vote are entitled to have their opinions counted.

No-one at the polling station will ask you if you have reached an informed decision and check if that decision is legitimate.

ei.sdraob

StealthRolex wrote: »

You'll have to vote No then because the Charter of Fundamental Rights will become law if this treaty is ratified and the right to freedom of expression and freedom to vote will them be enshrined in law until the QMV is invoked to restrict the counting of the opinions of certain people.

This is still a free country with freedom of expression guaranteed.

This is still a free country where those who choose to vote are entitled to have their opinions counted.

No-one at the polling station will ask you if you have reached an informed decision and check if that decision is legitimate.

thats a nice story you made up there


way to go

twist a rant from one member about the clear ignorance of the treaty and democracy being displayed another member into a dig about Lisbon

sigh.... why do i bother?

Plotician

Seems no one is reading between the lines here. Why should anyone vote for change when the proponents (and to some extent the opponents) of that change leave so much open to question?

Of note is the fact that no one here has yet engaged on any real analysis.

Jumping aside, how many here are interested in sport. GAA, soccer, take your pick. Ever listened to pre-match discussions about strengths and weaknesses of opposing teams, looked at the form, debated the likelihood of one outcome or another, talked about managers / players / state of the pitch etc etc and the effect these things might have on the game, or on a team in the longer run.

We've got in us to analyse things, but when it comes to the treaty it just seems to be a slagging match. What's more the effect of a game is relatively short-lived. The treaty (constitution/empire whatever you want to call it) falls closer to the definition of 'permanent'

Voting for such a change on the back of simply who shouts loudest does'nt cut it.

edenbridge146

Why should the Irish be subjected to another Vote??
Oh tut tut, you gave the wrong answer - back to the back of the class!!!

What happened to democracy that Michael Collins so bravely fought for in our freedom from the UK not even 100 years ago?
And now to get into a dictatorship of Europe!!!!

We are the only county in Europe with the Constitution. Thats Irish. Don't let them take that away. Stand up, be Irish, stay Irish.

Sam Vimes

Plotician wrote: »

Seems no one is reading between the lines here. Why should anyone vote for change when the proponents (and opponents) of that change leave so much open to question?

It amazes me the number of people who don't seem to realise that Fianna Fail are not the proponents of this change, the EU are are and FF are just one of thousands of organisations and people supporting the change.

If FF aren't telling you about the treaty, ask someone else. Here would be a good start: www.lisbontreaty20009.ie

StealthRolex

I'm voting 'no' for one reason only...

... because having a second referendum on the same issue is undemocractic.

An unfortunate precedent was set with Nice whereby if the Government\EU does not get the answer it desires it will keep asking until it does.

I cannot see how that is democratic.

If our first No vote was not respected then clearly there is a question mark over whether or not we live in a democracy. The first No vote should have led to the treaty being scrapped.

The only way I can test if we are still living in a democracy is to vote No.

If you cannot see how democracy is being eroded you probably shouldn't be voting

Sam Vimes

edenbridge146 wrote: »

Why should the Irish be subjected to another Vote??
Oh tut tut, you gave the wrong answer - back to the back of the class!!!

Congratulations on being the millionth person to make the same invalid point.search the forum for the million times people have explained exactly why its invalid

Dinner

edenbridge146 wrote: »

Why should the Irish be subjected to another Vote??
Oh tut tut, you gave the wrong answer - back to the back of the class!!!

Eh... no. We're having another vote because an overwhelming number of people didn't have a clue about the treaty and a lot of people had issues which have now been solved.

edenbridge146 wrote: »

What happened to democracy that Michael Collins so bravely fought for in our freedom from the UK not even 100 years ago?
And now to get into a dictatorship of Europe!!!!

As part of the freedom they won was the ability to take a seat on the international stage and to play a big role in the negotiating international treaties.

And Europe isn't a dictatorship, but you don't care.

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

I'm voting 'no' for one reason only...

... because having a second referendum on the same issue is undemocractic.

An unfortunate precedent was set with Nice whereby if the Government\EU does not get the answer it desires it will keep asking until it does.

I cannot see how that is democratic.

Does it have to be explained a million and one times before you'll see why it's perfectly democratic? Seriously, the ad nauseum repetition of this point regardless of correction is actually damaging my mental health at this stage

PopeBuckfastXVI

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Does it have to be explained a million and one times before you'll see why it's perfectly democratic? Seriously, the ad nauseum repetition of this point regardless of correction is actually damaging my mental health at this stage

Hmm, an interesting challenge:

Find me any quote by anyone in the government, anywhere on the 'net who has seriously seriously claimed that they are having another referendum because we gave the 'wrong answer'.

Anyone who's used those words in quote marks here willing to take me up on that?

edenbridge146

Dinner wrote: »

Eh... no. We're having another vote because an overwhelming number of people didn't have a clue about the treaty and a lot of people had issues which have now been solved.



As part of the freedom they won was the ability to take a seat on the international stage and to play a big role in the negotiating international treaties.

And Europe isn't a dictatorship, but you don't care.

So your saying that all the people who voted No, the last time didn't know what they were voting for??? I find highly offensive as I did know what I was voting for, and I voted NO. And yes I do care.
The Lisbon Treaty is not worth the paper its written on.
The exemptions that we have been 'promised' for the Lisbon Treaty are not worth the paper they're written on. To be made legal, would require re-ratification by every other country within Europe. It happened in Britain with the 48 hour working week - Britain had legallly binding guarantee's for the 48 hour working week - and EU threw it out stating health and safety.
The lisbon is a con.
If the Lisbon was DEMOCRATIC every country would have a referendum, but European Democracy doesn't extend that far. Welcome to Dictatorship

StealthRolex

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Hmm, an interesting challenge:

Find me any quote by anyone in the government, anywhere on the 'net who has seriously seriously claimed that they are having another referendum because we gave the 'wrong answer'.

Anyone who's used those words in quote marks here willing to take me up on that?

No body said it was the 'wrong answer'.

It wasn't the answer the government wanted and it wasn't the result the rest of the EU leaders wanted.

It was the result the Irish citizens who voted wanted.

Sam Vimes

edenbridge146 wrote: »

So your saying that all the people who voted No, the last time didn't know what they were voting for??? I find highly offensive as I did know what I was voting for, and I voted NO. And yes I do care.

You can find it offensive all you want. That's what the surveys showed. Why did you vote no?

edenbridge146 wrote: »

The Lisbon Treaty is not worth the paper its written on.
The exemptions that we have been 'promised' for the Lisbon Treaty are not worth the paper they're written on. To be made legal, would require re-ratification by every other country within Europe.

The fact that this is not true suggests you in fact did not know what you were voting on

Dinner

edenbridge146 wrote: »

So your saying that all the people who voted No, the last time didn't know what they were voting for??? I find highly offensive as I did know what I was voting for, and I voted NO. And yes I do care.

42% of no voters voted no because they didn't understand the treaty. A further 26% voted no for reasons that include the Commissioner, taxation, abortion etc. These figures are based on solid statistics, and haven't been plucked out of the air.

These issues have been sorted out by the guarantees, which are legally binding and will be lodged with the UN and will be turned into protocols in the next treaty.

edenbridge146 wrote: »

If the Lisbon was DEMOCRATIC every country would have a referendum, but European Democracy doesn't extend that far. Welcome to Dictatorship

This has nothing, and I mean nothing to do with the EU. It is up to each individual country how they ratify treaties. To use this as an argument that the EU is undemocratic is just false.

Once again, the EU has nothing to do with the fact that binding referenda are illegal in Germany and Holland, or that referendums on international treaties are illegal in Italy. Nothing.

edenbridge146

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You can find it offensive all you want. That's what the surveys showed. Why did you vote no?

The fact that this is not true suggests you in fact did not know what you were voting on

Your the one who doesn't understand.
It is a fact that abortion, neutrality and tax 'exemptions' will go ahead, once the Lisbon treaty goes ahead. All the other countries would start jumping on the wagon, stating what they want as 'exemptions' too, but they know they are not legally binding. FACT

PopeBuckfastXVI

edenbridge146 wrote: »

Your the one who doesn't understand.
It is a fact that abortion, neutrality and tax 'exemptions' will go ahead, once the Lisbon treaty goes ahead. All the other countries would start jumping on the wagon, stating what they want as 'exemptions' too, but they know they are not legally binding. FACT

They are not 'exemptions' for us, they are just not in the treaty.

StealthRolex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Does it have to be explained a million and one times before you'll see why it's perfectly democratic? Seriously, the ad nauseum repetition of this point regardless of correction is actually damaging my mental health at this stage

Do you work in the Commission or some other public service position?

The reason it is being repeated is because some people cannot get their heads around the fact that No means No.

If we have to say No a million and one times to get the message over then so be it.

I understand where you are coming from but the fact remains that the concerns of much of the population were not addressed because they voted no based on the contents of the treaty and those contents have not been changed.

There are no attached Protocols. No Seville.

I think it is just a little naive to think that the reason people voted no the last time was because they didn't understand it. That was the reason that was presented to raise the option for a second run.
Someone else I think described it as an insult but I'll go with naive.

The government could have set up a website to collect all the voters reasons for voting no and then make an informed decision but they didn't. Maybe they sent out the same pollsters who told them they were going to win. Maybe the pollsters just told them what they wanted to hear.

But Sam, please take care. I like you and I would hate to think that your mental health would become so impaired that you might not vote or for the right reasons

StealthRolex

There is only one reason to vote yes to this treaty. You like it.

There is one reason to vote no to this treaty. You don't like it.

I'm voting No because it will look just a bit silly if we all vote yes so just in case no-one votes No I'll make sure at least one No vote is there so it still looks like a democracy.

Why? Call me a pedantic democrat but when someone tells me you can vote yes or no but if you vote no it's not something we contemplated I get a little upset.
I also get a little upset when I'am presented with something illegible and asked to make a decision on it.
To top it all I am then told that the fate of 500,000,000 people is in my hands.
It get's worse - if I chicken out and want to go with a safe bet someone else tells me I shouldn't vote because there are unknown consequences too drastic to describe to voting no and I'm disqualified through not understanding anyway.
So I spend lots of time trying to understand it and then when I do get to grips with it and decide I don't like it I get lumped in with the nutters because they're voting No too.

What about the tree hugging nutters who are voting Yes?

The people I trust least are saying "Trust me, I know this is a good thing, vote yes".
Can I vote No because I don't trust the people telling me to vote yes?
What if I don't trust the people telling me to vote No?

I've read the summaries but they lack the detail. I read the detail but it's a nightmare to get your head around.

I've been asking for one good reason to vote Yes that can be weighed against the merits of what kind of Europe this treaty will facilitate. I get yes slogans.

They might not look like out and out threats but there are subtle messages in there. As far as informing goes - the Yes campaign is just as bad as the No camp. At least the No campaign is getting people to question the treaty and it's implications. You may question their methodology but that's politics. Or freedom of expression.

What are the Yes posters telling us?

"Yes for Jobs" - Does this mean No will cost jobs? Where does the treaty mention jobs?

"Yes for Recovery" - Does this mean No will mean No Recovery. In reality a recovery will happen - always does it's just a case of how long and to what extent. Where does the treaty mention Recovery?

"We Belong. You Decide." This implies that if we vote No we will no longer belong or that this referendum is a vote on our continuing membership of the EU. A Blatant lie.

"Ireland needs Europe". Well forgive me but it looks like at the moment Europe needs Ireland! Right now we have the EU by the balls - we just haven't decided on the grip yet.

Take any slogan from the Yes campaign posters and reverse them. Take a look at what they imply about a No vote. Treat them as you would an advert on the telly or any other product being hyped by a marketing machine. You can either accept it, be influenced and act accordingly. Or you can look at the product and see if it actually does what it says and is worth the yoyos.

The same can be done to the No slogans.

So let's take a reading on the No campaign. Will the minimum wage be 1.84 after Lisbon? Okay, so we know the answer to that but take it a step further. What if the minimum wage was 1.84? That would make Ireland a cheap country for outside direct investment or whatever they call it when companies outsource their work to Ireland. The taxman is 'king up the creek and whoever is Taoiseach won't be on €300,000 or whatever it is now. But we will have jobs. Loads of them. so the No poster is telling me to vote Yes for Jobs.

Please forgive me but I tend to ignore what the No side are saying on their posters so I only have the one example.

If you want one good No reason it's impossible because there is a bigger picture.

As Margot Wallström says, it's not about fixing the engine, it's about the policies ( http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/27986 )
As far as I am concerned the problem is in the engine room and if this treaty is not about fixing it there's my reason. One of them anyway.

Now, our constitution is not perfect but it is ours and we can control it. Sometimes it does not always work as expected as challenges and Supreme Court interpretations can have unexpected results.

The same applies for the treaties this treaty amends. We can pull it apart any way we like, take little bits of it out and say "it says this" or "it doesn't say that". What we cannot do is figure out what will happen when it is challenged.
Even less so when we factor in what the future amendments will do - those that do not require our mandate.
Do we want to take that gamble?

It took along time to put together and a lot of money. So what.
Some people spent a long time and a lot of money working on the Edsel. Did it really matter when it failed?
FAS has been around a long time and has cost a lot of money. Will it really matter if it has to be scrapped in favour of something better, more transparent and less costly?

The EU is supposed to be about democracy. In a democracy No is a valid answer. Presenting a contract and then saying you can say No if you like but there will be consequences is not democracy.

The EU has to learn that in a democracy a No vote must be respected.
If the result is No due to a lack of undertanding that must be addressed. It was a reason given for the last No vote that clearly has not been addressed adequately.
If the result is No due to a dislike of the contents of the treaty or the policies it describes these must be addressed.
The EU must be prepared to accept that if they give a free vote to someone they have to accept the decision.

If the EU and the Irish Government are not prepared for us to say No then they must find a way to bypass our constitution if they want to plow on with these policies.

In the meantime, while we have a vote, get out and use it.

if you are not going to vote maybe it's because you don't give a ****.

* excepting those who for legitimate reasons cannot make it to the polling station.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Going to repost from the bloggersforeurope blog here:

---

There’s definitely an interesting discussion to be had around changing the constitution to disallow multiple referenda.

I have thought about this before, I think it would have to involve some sort of double positive referendum, whereby the constitution can’t remain unchanged after a referendum.

Right now the constitution is agnostic on a failed referendum, so there’s no constitutional way of barring a second referendum on the same subject.

I was thinking you could add a provision for double positive referenda, so for example, after the first Lisbon referendum the constitution would have been altered to say something like ‘The government may not ratify the Lisbon treaty’. You would also need to add a provision in the constitution to state that changes cannot be reversed for some minimum period. I can see a heated debate around how long that period should be, having said that.

It would certainly help us take our referenda more seriously, and hopefully concentrate minds, if we knew that we wouldn’t have an opportunity to revisit that issue for e.g. 10 years.

I’d be against the idea, personally, because I don’t believe in binding the present electorate to the decisions of the past, no matter how long ago they were, but I can certainly see an argument for it.

Probably something to pursue post October 2nd though, I can’t see another referendum campaign being too welcome by anyone between now and then!

---

It's entirely uninteresting and unsurprising that the group of people calling this referendum 'undemocratic' and the group of people who voted 'no' in the first one almost entirely overlap.

I have a question:
If the vote is 'No' in the second one, then there's no problem, the will of the people hasn't changed, but if the vote is 'yes' is it democratic to deny the current will of the people and bind them to a past decision?

Dinner

StealthRolex wrote: »

Maybe the pollsters just told them what they wanted to hear.

So you don't believe the survey based on your own unfounded paranoia?
Why am I not surprised.

Millward Brown's reputation is based on statistically accurate surveys. Without that, they have nothing.

Your entire argument that the government have not addressed the concerns of the majority of voters is based purely on speculation in your own head, and has no valid basis in the real world.

PopeBuckfastXVI

When all else fails allege incompetence or corruption on behalf of the pollster eh?

Kind of reminds me of creationists and dinosaurs...

Flamed Diving

Plotician wrote: »

I'm tired of public representatives who are supposed to act in the interests of the people but fail to provide the full picture.

Give me the facts and i'll make a balanced and educated choice based on that information. Give me the positives AND the negatives and don't be afraid to do so. Try to influence me with biased arguments and your own agenda then you'll get a protest vote.

A protest at what...?

A protest at a political system that endemically serves it's own purpose.
A protest at a political system that fails to fully inform the electorate.
A protest at a political system that is rife with internal agendas.
A protest at a political system that puts power before people.

Learn to trust me with the facts, and you'll get my trust in return. Until then any little act that helps provoke some self-examination is far more appealing.

And for those who say that's naieve and a 'no' for the wrong reasons - i don't care. There's a bigger picture here - it's called the true preservation of democracy.

(Guess i'm just tired of all the shyte!)

Name one political system that doesn't tick all these boxes.

The problem you have is with humanity.

StealthRolex

Dinner wrote: »

Millward Brown's reputation is based on statistically accurate surveys. Without that, they have nothing.

No, it's based on marketing surveys. He, or rather his company, knows how to use tailored surveys to achieve certain results. That's his business. Marketing and figuring out what will work best for whatever client.

They use personal face-to-face interviewers which presents scope for manipulation and bias both inadvertent and by design.

StealthRolex

Dinner wrote: »

Your entire argument that the government have not addressed the concerns of the majority of voters is based purely on speculation in your own head, and has no valid basis in the real world.

If the concerns were adequately addressed why are we having this discussion?

Dinner

StealthRolex wrote: »

If the concerns were adequately addressed why are we having this discussion?

I wish I knew...

meglome

StealthRolex wrote: »

The reason it is being repeated is because some people cannot get their heads around the fact that No means No.

But No never meant No, the government have always had the opportunity to re-run. Our constitution has always allowed for more than one vote. Now you seem to love that constitution when it suits you and scream about the lack of democracy when it doesn't.

StealthRolex wrote: »

If we have to say No a million and one times to get the message over then so be it.

I'd imagine you'll only have to say No this second time.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I understand where you are coming from but the fact remains that the concerns of much of the population were not addressed because they voted no based on the contents of the treaty and those contents have not been changed.

Much of the population eh? So 66% of electorate voted No for reasons that were... not knowing what was in the treaty, things that aren't in the treaty or things that have been addressed. So only 34% of people voted No for things that were directly related to the treaty now, out of the 54% who voted No. So we've got 27%(ish) of the electorate that votes No, and only 18% of the electorate that voted No for any currently valid reason.

18% of the electorate is 'much' now is it? Wonder what percentage of the population that is 8%?

StealthRolex wrote: »

I think it is just a little naive to think that the reason people voted no the last time was because they didn't understand it. That was the reason that was presented to raise the option for a second run.
Someone else I think described it as an insult but I'll go with naive.

They ASKED people why they voted No there's nothing 'naive' about that. But no let's assume it a big conspiracy against the No campaign instead.

StealthRolex wrote: »

The government could have set up a website to collect all the voters reasons for voting no and then make an informed decision but they didn't. Maybe they sent out the same pollsters who told them they were going to win. Maybe the pollsters just told them what they wanted to hear.

Judging from boards.ie with the 5 people that probably have 30 accounts this whole process would be meaningless. I do love the constant suggestion from the campaign full of dirty tricks that they are the victims of dirty tricks. Very amusing.

FutureTaoiseach

Tell me this. Are not the clarifications, by their non-inclusion in an EU treaty (other than what we're promised years from now), the equivalent of the Dail and Seanad passing a law 'clarifying' the Irish Constitution? Because if so, that doesn't give cause for confidence to me as to their capacity to stand up in the ECJ. The Irish Supreme Court would not take kindly to guidelines from Leinster House on what the Irish Constitution means, because determining what it means is the prerogative of the SC, just as determining what EU law means is the prerogative of the ECJ. In that context, if the guarantees were actually in the Treaties, they would be far more credible. But they are not, and I would like to know why? And I mean the EU Treaties btw.

StealthRolex

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

When all else fails allege incompetence or corruption on behalf of the pollster eh?

Kind of reminds me of creationists and dinosaurs...

I did not allege corruption or incompetence. I suggested that the pollsters were just doing their job.

The remainder of your post is hurtful and below the belt.

meglome

StealthRolex wrote: »

I did not allege corruption or incompetence. I suggested that the pollsters were just doing their job.

The remainder of your post is hurtful and below the belt.

He he he hang on now. How is suggesting that the pollsters were paid to achieve a desired result not alleging something?

sdanseo

Have to say the OP has a very fair point. the government deserve to be punished for their shocking, shocking attitude to just about everything the last year. I LOL'ed when I saw the government information leaflet. One double-sided sheet of A4, half of which was Irish and half what was left were bright pictures. Laughable.

Voting No won't do punish the government though. Well, it might contribute - but anyone who thinks Cowen will just buckle straight out of office is sadly mistaken.

Punishing the government is simply not a justifiable reason for voting no.

I'm still undecided, that said. My sig was NO, then Yes, no not at all because I really don't know. We're screwed if we don't, screwed if we do. That's no way to be, and faced with that choice keeping things as we know them is marginally more attractive. I don't have ludicrous visions of us being tossed out of the EU and making a good go of it on our own, but I do think the EU as an organisation has well overstepped its original remit to a frankly ridiculous and simply moronic extent. Each country and culture is different (although we could do with aboloshing some of our own) and there are things the EU has really no bloody business in, the same things for which the EU role will only be strengthened by this treaty.

Add all this to the fact we've already been bloody well asked and said no, and our decision, accoring to the goverment (back on topic, sorry) just wasn't good enough for their stupid stubborn minds to comprehend.

I really do believe the only reason to vote yes is because if we don't we'll be ousted "to the margins" as An Taoiseach put it. And whole that scares me, and makes me want to vote yes, I object and am saddened that we are in effect being forced or pressurised to vote yes for this reason.