Lisbon Voters Please Answer These Questions

FunnyStuff

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're not being forced to vote on it again. If you don't want to vote on it again, don't vote on it again.

I wont even dignify that dumb comment with an answer

FunnyStuff

Dinner wrote: »

Wait... you readily admit that you didn't understand a whole lot of the treaty and your lack of knowledge contributed to your no vote. And you're complaining about having a second chance to learn about the treaty and vote again?



It's funny that you want to commit acts of violence on Sarkozy for saying that we should vote again if the issues could be sorted but you don't seem to be nearly as angry at someone like Nigel Farage coming out with blatant lies to trick people into voting no.




quote]

Are you really saying that if someone asks you to do something you are unsure of, you should just do it???? We're you born this stupid or did you get pulled to one side in class.

And Sarkozy said nothing about voting again if the issues could be sorted, he just said we'll have to vote again.

Tridion

FunnyStuff wrote: »

Are you really saying that if someone asks you to do something you are unsure of, you should just do it???? We're you born this stupid or did you get pulled to one side in class.

Are you really suggesting that if you don't understand the Treaty, you should just go and vote in ignorance, not understanding what you're voting on?

FunnyStuff wrote: »

And Sarkozy said nothing about voting again if the issues could be sorted, he just said we'll have to vote again.

What is your problem? We're not voting on Sarkozy. He is an annoying French, pompous man with a complex about his height. But we're still not voting on him.

FunnyStuff

Tridion wrote: »

What is your problem? We're not voting on Sarkozy. He is an annoying French, pompous man with a complex about his height. But we're still not voting on him.

My problem is his attitude, sticking his nose in and telling other nations what they should do. And obviously we're not voting on him, we're not voting on membership of the EU either, but judging by the posters put up by the Yes campaign, you would think that we are.

Tridion

FunnyStuff wrote: »

My problem is his attitude, sticking his nose in and telling other nations what they should do. And obviously we're not voting on him, we're not voting on membership of the EU either, but judging by the posters put up by the Yes campaign, you would think that we are.

Oh god I know. "Yes to EUrope" - I mean what does that actually mean? Platitudes, platitudes, platitudes.

But if you're looking for some good reasons to vote yes, just look at my post above. I'm personally voting yes for myself and my family and because I think it's in the best interests of Ireland.

Can I ask what way you're planning on voting?

FunnyStuff

Tridion wrote: »

Can I ask what way you're planning on voting?

Undecided.

Tridion

FunnyStuff wrote: »

Undecided.

What are your concerns or are you looking for reasons to vote yes?

Dinner

FunnyStuff wrote: »

Are you really saying that if someone asks you to do something you are unsure of, you should just do it????

No, believe it or not I'm saying either find out what you are voting on or don't bother voting! It's not a difficult concept.

FunnyStuff wrote: »

We're you born this stupid or did you get pulled to one side in class.

Nice. With well thought out reasoning like you'll be spending a lot of time around this forum without getting banned...

Mario007

Dinner wrote: »

No, believe it or not I'm saying either find out what you are voting on or don't bother voting! It's not a difficult concept.




Nice. With well thought out reasoning like you'll be spending a lot of time around this forum without getting banned...

that doesnt matter to him, cos he'll just set up another new profile. there's been a lot of newcomers here, with ten posts and a ban...

Sam Vimes

Plotician wrote: »

I've read most of it, focussed on about 50%, and have a particular interest in neutrality.

Without repeating it all again on this thread, I do believe irish neutrality is at risk, regardless of the assurances, and that was my reason for voting no the first time.

This time i will be voting no again, on the neutrality issue, and also in protest at being asked to vote again anyway. A referendum is a democratic process and i think the manoevering used to justify another referendum is ethically wrong and not in the spirit of what democracy is supposed to be.

I honestly don't mean this to be offensive so please don't take it as such but if your reasons for voting no are neutrality and being asked to vote again then you're voting on two misconceptions. The treaty does not effect our neutrality and a second referendum is not in any way undemocratic. See the 158 trillion times this has been explained for why it's not undemocratic

Sam Vimes

FunnyStuff wrote: »

oops, mistake there. Anyway, i voted no the last time, and to be honest i didnt understand a massive amount of the treaty. But one of the things that has hardened my stance this time is being forced to vote on it again

So you don't really know why you voted no the first time but you're voting no the second time because you were asked to vote again? Honestly, does that logic not seem a bit odd to you? That you didn't have any good reason to reject it last time because you didn't understand it but you object to someone asking you to reconsider?

Mrmoe

I will be voting No for a number of reasons. I will not say that I am 100% for it yet as I am still researching it. Here are some of the reasons why, in no particular order.

1. Loss of sovereignty.
2. Loss of influence.
3. The lack of a direct vote for the majority of Europeans on this issue.
4. Self amending aspect of the treaty.
5. Loss of workers rights.
6. Possibility of collapsing the current government.
7. Rerunning of the referendum in such a short space of time in addition to the contempt shown towards the No vote the last time.
8. A lack of trust in what is being offered by our current political representatives.

Sam Vimes

Mrmoe wrote: »

1. Loss of sovereignty

People say this as if QMV in some more areas is self evidently bad. Why do you object to it? Which specific areas are you concerned about moving to QMV?

Personally I think QMV is far more democratic and a better way to run the union (with notable exceptions) and I don't think Ireland's interests are so divorced to those of the rest of Europe that anything we don't want will be forced on us. Even in the areas that are currently decided by QMV unanimity is the norm

Mrmoe wrote: »

2. Loss of influence.

QMV doesn't automatically mean loss of influence. Pissing off all of our neighbours for no good reason is a sure way to lose influence though

Mrmoe wrote: »

3. The lack of a direct vote for the majority of Europeans on this issue.

None of our business. We're not being asked to vote on our approval of the ratification procedures of the other EU countries

Mrmoe wrote: »

4. Self amending aspect of the treaty.

It's not self amending. That's one of many lies that you've unfortunately been led to believe

Mrmoe wrote: »

5. Loss of workers rights.

How's that then?

Mrmoe wrote: »

6. Possibility of collapsing the current government.

So you think it's acceptable to deny 26 other countries something they want because of our internal problems with our own government?

Mrmoe wrote: »

7. Rerunning of the referendum in such a short space of time in addition to the contempt shown towards the No vote the last time.

See the 158 trillion explanations for why this is invalid

Mrmoe wrote: »

8. A lack of trust in what is being offered by our current political representatives.

If you don't trust our political representatives then get your information from one of the hundreds of other sources or better yet, read the consolidated treaty. I recommend you start here www.lisbontreaty2009.ie

Mario007

Mrmoe wrote: »

I will be voting No for a number of reasons. I will not say that I am 100% for it yet as I am still researching it. Here are some of the reasons why, in no particular order.

1. Loss of sovereignty.

could you expand on this one? because the irish constitution will stand still after Lisbon and Ireland will still be a republic in every sense of the world.

Mrmoe wrote: »

2. Loss of influence.

i'm assuming you mean the QMV. well the QMV has a double voting requirement. it does decrease ireland's influence in one of the votes to the popular 0.8%(thats population voting) but also it gives ireland an influence of 3.7%(each country has one vote). plus,as has been pointed out before, in QMV you need just 4 countries to get together to veto something.

Mrmoe wrote: »

3. The lack of a direct vote for the majority of Europeans on this issue.

you see that a problem with the eu not lisbon. if you vote no, we'll be kept under nice, which is basically the status quo today. under lisbon we don't get any new direct voting, but the EP has much more powers and so do national parliaments, so that increases direct control. also the council has to meet in the open to increase the transparency.

Mrmoe wrote: »

4. Self amending aspect of the treaty.

thats made up by the no side. every new treaty has to go through the same process of ratification as before lisbon. in fact the article regarding this in lisbon is word for word same as in nice.

Mrmoe wrote: »

5. Loss of workers rights.

dont know where you're coming from here but the charter of human rights actually increases workers rights. in fact it fills in a gap as the irish constitution is very vague with regards to protecting workers rights. with the charter we'll have workers rights set in stone.

Mrmoe wrote: »

6. Possibility of collapsing the current government.

i'm sorry to disappoint but cowen won't resign. this is a treaty where the coallition and opposition parties are on the same side. so it would mean that kenny, gilmore and gormley would have to resign too should the lisbon referendum give a no answer again. plus you should vote on the treaty not on anything else, but the treaty itself.

Mrmoe wrote: »

7. Rerunning of the referendum in such a short space of time in addition to the contempt shown towards the No vote the last time.

this has been discussed around a million times. its democratic because the constitution allows it. any law can be put forward at any time. we can have a rerun of the divorce referendum if the government so decides and then again and again. plus passing lisbon is in the government programme, and the government got its on mandate based on that programme. so basically they are trying to fulfill their promise.
also the no voters were asked to give reasons for a no answer and these issues have been addressed. i think the biggest sign of compassion from europe is that the commissioner agreement was canceled just so that irish voters would be happy.

Mrmoe wrote: »

8. A lack of trust in what is being offered by our current political representatives.

i can't help there, i'm afraid. only to repeat that you should vote on the treaty itself, not on the political representation.

hope this helps

Sam Vimes

Mario007 wrote: »

i think the biggest sign of compassion from europe is that the commissioner agreement was canceled just so that irish voters would be happy.

True. The size of the commission was being reduced for good reason. It's too big and has become inefficient. But they decided to change the decision made under Nice and defined under Lisbon to keep all the commissioners to satisfy the Irish misconception that the commissioner represents Ireland when he actually looks after the interests of the EU, just like the rest of them.

But because this change didn't require a change to the text of the treaty we have people shouting "they tuk our democracy!!!!" and generally getting pissed off about being asked to vote on a different deal to last time. The text may be the same but the outcome isn't. The only way to keep the commissioner now is to vote yes

Mrmoe

Sam Vimes wrote: »

People say this as if QMV in some more areas is self evidently bad. Why do you object to it? Which specific areas are you concerned about moving to QMV?

Personally I think QMV is far more democratic and a better way to run the union (with notable exceptions) and I don't think Ireland's interests are so divorced to those of the rest of Europe that anything we don't want will be forced on us. Even in the areas that are currently decided by QMV unanimity is the norm

QMV doesn't automatically mean loss of influence. Pissing off all of our neighbours for no good reason is a sure way to lose influence though

I believe the mere fact of the size of our vote in the QMV will make us less influential. If you were to look at it from a neutral point (with Europe being one large country for example) the QMV would be the perfect system. However, I do not want a system that is fair, I want one that provides the most influence and power for this country as possible. It is purely a selfish reason.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

None of our business. We're not being asked to vote on our approval of the ratification procedures of the other EU countries

I find this wrong as it goes against the perception of democracy that I have.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's not self amending. That's one of many lies that you've unfortunately been led to believe

I have made a mistake here, I will need to read more. I actually picked this up from a Yes voter on here, but possibly I made a mistake/misread.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

How's that then?

http://euobserver.com/18/28597

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So you think it's acceptable to deny 26 other countries something they want because of our internal problems with our own government?

Yes I do as I believe it is of greater importance to this country than the Lisbon Treaty.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

See the 158 trillion explanations for why this is invalid


If you don't trust our political representatives then get your information from one of the hundreds of other sources or better yet, read the consolidated treaty. I recommend you start here www.lisbontreaty2009.ie

I do not think it is invalid as it displays contempt. Legally it is perfectly acceptable to do it morally it is not. I already try to get my information from other sources. If I had enough time I would read the treaty, I am currently starting on it.

Daftendirekt

Mario007 wrote: »

you see that a problem with the eu not lisbon. if you vote no, we'll be kept under nice, which is basically the status quo today. under lisbon we don't get any new direct voting, but the EP has much more powers and so do national parliaments, so that increases direct control. also the council has to meet in the open to increase the transparency.

Have to comment on this: the method by which EU member states ratify treaties is a matter for the member states alone, and the EU has no power to intervene. And nor should it.

K-9

Mrmoe wrote: »

I believe the mere fact of the size of our vote in the QMV will make us less influential. If you were to look at it from a neutral point (with Europe being one large country for example) the QMV would be the perfect system. However, I do not want a system that is fair, I want one that provides the most influence and power for this country as possible. It is purely a selfish reason.

Fair enough. The best system then would be to have no QMV, or better still, stay out of the EU.

We alrady have QMV. Any examples of where it went against us or is this a principle that has to upheld, no matter what?

meglome

Mrmoe wrote: »

I find this wrong as it goes against the perception of democracy that I have.

How do you think it's democratic for us to decide on what the rest of Europe should do?

Mrmoe wrote: »

...I actually picked this up from a Yes voter on here, but possibly I made a mistake/misread.

You see this comment makes me wonder about your motives. I've been reading stuff in here for weeks and I've never seen any Yes voters mistake that, it's one of the biggest lies from the No campaign.

3greenrizla's

I voted No last time, when I considered myself fairly knowledgeable about the treaty, I have forgotten most of what I read so am coming back for a fresh look at the issue.

But last time....
I was not happy with loosing a commissioner (sorted now, or so were told),
I was fearful about loosing our voting % (thanks for the good explanation about double majority earlier in the thread), and I was fearful about us loosing our sovereignty (still there)

but most of all I voted no because of the politicians who were telling me "You MUST vote yes, trust me on it, I'm not going to explain the reason why you should vote yes, but if you don't the rest of Europe will shun us forever & we need to know our place...... Nevermind the fact that this is a repackaged EU constitution that has been rejected by the French & the Danes, a lot of people got paid a lot of money and put in a lot of time into this treaty, so it has to go through with us or without us, oh & no one thought of a plan b"

Someone has a link in their sig that suggests 92% of economists think Lisbon is a good idea, yeah, economists, there a great trustworthy bunch along with the politicians, I wonder what the builders think?

and this time, it's even worse, I feel like they are coming out and saying "we told you once, now get it right this time"

I seen a (yes)poster today that read something like "A strong Irish voice is vital in Europe" & thought what is our Veto worth if Europe "shun" us when we say NO & would we not have a very loud voice in Europe if we say NO again?

I then seen a (no) poster that suggested 80% of European citizins were against the treaty, which made me think of the Danes and the French again, and sneaky, obnoxious politicians.

I am just an average voter, with enough interest in politics to read threads like this and look for information at the minute I feel "bullied" and I dont like it, I don't like the "Vote yes OR ELSE"...... or else what?

3greenrizla's

oh & I know that most of the vocal NO side is made up of zealot nutters, which kind of makes me want to vote for the treaty.

- I am up for grabs, convince me.

Mrmoe

K-9 wrote: »

Fair enough. The best system then would be to have no QMV, or better still, stay out of the EU.

We alrady have QMV. Any examples of where it went against us or is this a principle that has to upheld, no matter what?

I don't have any particular example where it went against us. Why couldn't they have left it the way it is currently?

Sam Vimes

Mrmoe wrote: »

I believe the mere fact of the size of our vote in the QMV will make us less influential. If you were to look at it from a neutral point (with Europe being one large country for example) the QMV would be the perfect system. However, I do not want a system that is fair, I want one that provides the most influence and power for this country as possible. It is purely a selfish reason.

Ireland already has a small vote. What makes us influential is not a 5% vote instead of a 3.7% one, it's our reputation and the goodwill of our neighbours and colleagues. The EU works through negotiation and compromise, not through the threat of vetos. Ireland has never used its veto. We're losing far more influence by sticking two fingers up at everyone for no good reason (for the most part) than by our vote possibly dropping by a few percent

Mrmoe wrote: »

I find this wrong as it goes against the perception of democracy that I have.

But it's not the perception of democracy that those countries have and Ireland has no right to tell these countries they're doing democracy wrong. With the amount of lies that have gone around about this treaty I've lost all faith in referendums tbh

Mrmoe wrote: »

I have made a mistake here, I will need to read more. I actually picked this up from a Yes voter on here, but possibly I made a mistake/misread.

You didn't misread, it's a very persistent lie. They're talking about the simplified revision procedure, article 48.

Mrmoe wrote: »

http://euobserver.com/18/28597

Unite's against it but the other trade unions aren't. It doesn't damage workers rights, honestly. It's the same thing that's been said about every treaty

Mrmoe wrote: »

Yes I do as I believe it is of greater importance to this country than the Lisbon Treaty.

But Fianna Fail is not of great importance to the rest of Europe. I honestly think that if this is shown to be a significant reason for a second no vote we should withdraw from the EU because it is not acceptable to hold Europe to ransom because we don't like the government that we keep voting in

Mrmoe wrote: »

I do not think it is invalid as it displays contempt. Legally it is perfectly acceptable to do it morally it is not. I already try to get my information from other sources. If I had enough time I would read the treaty, I am currently starting on it.

This is what has changed since the last referendum

1. The significant numbers (>30%) of people who voted no for reasons related to abortion, taxation, neutrality and conscription have got guarantees that these issues are not effected by the treaty. Ireland retains full control over these issues
2. The significant numbers (don't know the exact figure) who voted no because we were losing our commissioner now don't have that reason because we're keeping him
3. The significant numbers (42%) who voted no because they didn't understand the treaty and didn't want to accept something they didn't understand have now had two years to understand it so they no longer have that reason. Personally I think that the only reason people said they didn't understand it in the first place is because so many lies were being spread and they didn't know who to believe. That and they didn't trust our politicians. But there is now a wealth of unbiased information out there for anyone who wants it

So why not give these people the opportunity to reconsider now that their reasons for rejection have been addressed?

Judgement Day

I voted NO last time out and will again this time, indeed, I have voted NO on every single European treaty since I have had the vote. I am not against the original concept of the European Economic Community but I am against the 'European Project' i.e. a United States of Europe. Incidentally, if the YES votes shades it this time by a small majority will it be re-run again to give the NO side another chance - it's pure farce.

Why I will vote NO:

1. All the main parties, media etc. say vote YES so automatically I will vote no as I strongly object to being bullied.
2. It may help bring this wretched Government down.
3. I am against the lack of passport control that the free movement of people within the EU has allowed.
4. I am against the massive influx of cheap labour from the new accession states.
5. When Turkey eventually joins we will be even more exposed to the threat of even more Islamic extremists infiltrating Europe.
6. I am against a European army.
7. Every time I hear about all the money that the EU has given Ireland to build up our infrastructure I say and why did they do it - so they could use Ireland as a dumping ground for their unemployed masses? Can you imagine what this country could end up like in twenty years time with the Irish a minority in their own country.

Anyway I am heartily fed-up with the Brussels gravy train, our ffing useless politicians and nothing anybody can say will change my mind and I will vote NO again if I am still drawing breath on polling day.

Now should I move this post to Ranting & Raving? :mad:

Daftendirekt

Mrmoe wrote: »

I believe the mere fact of the size of our vote in the QMV will make us less influential. If you were to look at it from a neutral point (with Europe being one large country for example) the QMV would be the perfect system. However, I do not want a system that is fair, I want one that provides the most influence and power for this country as possible. It is purely a selfish reason.

This is fair enough. Two things I will say though: the Council usually works by consensus, and will continue to do so after Lisbon. This means, at present the veto is rarely ever used, and post-Lisbon, the same would (probably) be true of QMV. Of course, this doesn't mean the shift to QMV isn't important or relevant, it's just something to bear in mind.

Another thing: why do you assume we lose influence under the QMV system? I'd look at it from the opposite angle - sure, we can't veto everything we don't like, but everyone else is in the same boat! Which means, we'll actually gain some power to pass legislation. The blocking minority of four states also provides an extra safeguard.

I find this wrong as it goes against the perception of democracy that I have.

Again, this is fair enough, but do you accept that other countries also have different perceptions of democracy??

Despite what some No campaigners will have you believe, holding referenda on EU treaties is very much the exception in Europe, and not the norm. I don't think that putting EU treaties to public vote is necessarily a bad idea, but it is our system, and our system alone. Just like parliamentary ratification is the German and Dutch system.

If you're going to say that Ireland should be able to influence other member states to use our system, to be consistent, you should also say other member states are entitled to attempt to influence us to use theirs. For example, would you have a problem with the Germans refusing to ratify a treaty we wanted passed, until we removed the requirement for referenda from our constitution?

Referenda are a valid form of direct democracy, but representative democracy is another equally valid form. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, but it's up to the people of each member state to decide for themselves which system they prefer.

I have made a mistake here, I will need to read more. I actually picked this up from a Yes voter on here, but possibly I made a mistake/misread.

I'm afraid you aren't the only one. For what it's worth, I'll add my assurance that the 'self-amending' thing is nonsense.

http://euobserver.com/18/28597

I'll be brief on this one... Joe Higgins is opposing Lisbon on the grounds that it's bad for workers' rights, yet on his website, he had to misquote the treaty to defend his stance.

Also, see the Solemn Declaration on workers' rights.

I do not think it is invalid as it displays contempt. Legally it is perfectly acceptable to do it morally it is not. I already try to get my information from other sources. If I had enough time I would read the treaty, I am currently starting on it.

I definitely disagree with this. If the government had simply said after the first referendum, 'Nah, don't like that result, try again, lads,' I could probably see your point, but that's not what happend. After the result of the first referendum, the gov carried out some research to try and figure out why people voted no. Based on this, they then sought out legal guarantees which ensure the treaty can't be interpreted so as to affect the areas that Irish voters were concerned about. As well as this, they secured a promise to reain the Commission as it is, in exchange for a Yes vote from Ireland.

And also, if you're if it's of any concern to you, the guarantees are legally binding agreements. I've seen some people talking about them as if they're merely promises sealed with a handshake, when in reality they're more like legally binding contracts.

Daftendirekt

Judgement Day wrote: »

Anyway I am heartily fed-up with the Brussels gravy train, our ffing useless politicians and nothing anybody can say will change my mind and I will vote NO again if I am still drawing breath on polling day.

Now should I move this post to Ranting & Raving? :mad:

Maybe you should. Or you could at least pretend you're interested in debating the treaty.

Kama

Current: Undecided, No-leaning.

Last time: out of the country.

Information Level: Unlike anyone else apparently, I'd consider myself around 3/10. While I've read the Treaty, I don't consider myself competent to judge what every 'shall be deleted' actually means, even before a lawyer gets her hands on it. I'm always amazed so many people seem to understand all the possible ramifications, but I know I don't. So I'm unsurprised it seems to reduce quickly down to (mis)trust, in experts, technocrats, lawyers, civil servants or whoever to 'do the right thing'.


Argument by national soveriegnty seems a quite consistent reason to vote No, imo, much as being reconstituted as a political subject by EU citizenship understandably sticks in the craw of nationalists of any hue. I'm not nationalist by any means, but I respect it as a position. If I were all True Gael, I'd be pretty short with anyone told me 'pooling sovereignty' didn't decrease independence. But as a Belgian interloper of a generation or two ago, I don't get too riled about it.

None of our business. We're not being asked to vote on our approval of the ratification procedures of the other EU countries

Yet unavoidably, some of the vote will reflect views on the overall trajectory of the ratification process, through from the failure of the Constitution to its resuscitation and current zombie status. Rhetorically, No has a strong but inherently doomer-pessimist argument:

'regardless of how you vote, the EU will integrate, so Vote No!

Which is hardly an inspiring message, but perhaps it appeals to our national fatalism...

Sam Vimes wrote:

With the amount of lies that have gone around about this treaty I've lost all faith in referendums tbh

...which feeds straight back into the 'elite technocrats want to steal our democracy'. I can't imagine a Yes vote would have been rolled back if the electorate had been found to be 'factually ignorant'. It's all a bit 'heads I win tails you lose'; a No vote can be deconstructed and re-marketed, or put down to ignorance, whereas the same would never happen in the other direction.

Daftendirekt

Kama wrote: »

Current: Undecided, No-leaning.

Last time: out of the country.

Information Level: Unlike anyone else apparently, I'd consider myself around 3/10. While I've read the Treaty, I don't consider myself competent to judge what every 'shall be deleted' actually means, even before a lawyer gets her hands on it. I'm always amazed so many people seem to understand all the possible ramifications, but I know I don't. So I'm unsurprised it seems to reduce quickly down to (mis)trust, in experts, technocrats, lawyers, civil servants or whoever to 'do the right thing'.

You need to get your hands on the consolidated versions of the treaties. It'll make much more sense than reading the list of amendments, believe me.

Mario007

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Have to comment on this: the method by which EU member states ratify treaties is a matter for the member states alone, and the EU has no power to intervene. And nor should it.

i agree i was commenting on the eu institutions not on the member states

meglome

3greenrizla's wrote: »

I voted No last time, when I considered myself fairly knowledgeable about the treaty, I have forgotten most of what I read so am coming back for a fresh look at the issue.

I didn't vote at all the last time, just didn't know enough about the treaty. So I came in here with an open mind on the treaty itself but with a view that the EU has (so far) been very good for Ireland.

3greenrizla's wrote: »

But last time....
I was not happy with loosing a commissioner (sorted now, or so were told),
I was fearful about loosing our voting % (thanks for the good explanation about double majority earlier in the thread), and I was fearful about us loosing our sovereignty (still there)

We're all going to be worried about slightly different things. The EU does everything through negotiation and as far as I know we've never used our veto anyway. So it's swings and roundabouts on the voting and commissioner. Practically we have slightly less voting weigh than we had but since the EU has always done everything through negotiation I feel we won't actually lose anything. For me the very idea that a small country with few resources can be completely independent is a myth to begin with. We punch way above our weight thanks to our membership of the EU and we export most of our goods there. So any areas we share control with them (so far) is fine by me.

3greenrizla's wrote: »

but most of all I voted no because of the politicians who were telling me "You MUST vote yes, trust me on it, I'm not going to explain the reason why you should vote yes, but if you don't the rest of Europe will shun us forever & we need to know our place...... Nevermind the fact that this is a repackaged EU constitution that has been rejected by the French & the Danes, a lot of people got paid a lot of money and put in a lot of time into this treaty, so it has to go through with us or without us, oh & no one thought of a plan b"

Our politicians are not always that great and our government is total ****e. So I don't blame you for not believing in them but there are just so many groups supporting it here, can they all be wrong? The majority of the No campaign have voted No to very single EU treaty, even when we joined the EU. They have claimed similar things each time, and we're still waiting for all these bad things to happen since 1973.

Sure a lot of this treaty was in the EU constitution minus any mention of a state of course. But the reforms that were in that constitution are still needed now just like they were then. It's true the French and Dutch voted No to the constitution, but Spain and Luxembourg voted Yes. And the French and Dutch people had a problem with the state-like language not the reforms.

3greenrizla's wrote: »

Someone has a link in their sig that suggests 92% of economists think Lisbon is a good idea, yeah, economists, there a great trustworthy bunch along with the politicians, I wonder what the builders think?

I think that's me Anyway the economists are just another viewpoint, to add to the many other groups that support Lisbon.

3greenrizla's wrote: »

and this time, it's even worse, I feel like they are coming out and saying "we told you once, now get it right this time"

We in fairness when you look at the reasons people gave for voting No, they weren't the most sensible set I've ever seen. Only 28% of the electorate voted No and the majority of them for reasons that were... they didn't know what was in the treaty, it just wasn't in the treaty or the commissioner. Not exactly the overwhelming will of the people. I think given the new package being put to us and the extra time people will have to learn what's actually in the treaty I have no problem with this new referendum.

3greenrizla's wrote: »

I seen a (yes)poster today that read something like "A strong Irish voice is vital in Europe" & thought what is our Veto worth if Europe "shun" us when we say NO & would we not have a very loud voice in Europe if we say NO again?

It's all about negotiation so the more friends we have in Europe the better for us. And with a No to Lisbon we lose the commissioner. Not a big deal for me personally but it was for many.

3greenrizla's wrote: »

I then seen a (no) poster that suggested 80% of European citizins were against the treaty, which made me think of the Danes and the French again, and sneaky, obnoxious politicians.

It's a misquote from Charlie McCreevy on a Cóir poster. I haven't yet seen one No poster that had anything true on it, it's disgusting. Yup we'll just put a question mark on the end of our '1.84 the minimum wage after Lisbon?' and it's not a statement any more, we're just asking - yeah right. Given the dirty tricks and lies from the No campaign they really put our politicians in the shade in some respects.

3greenrizla's wrote: »

I am just an average voter, with enough interest in politics to read threads like this and look for information at the minute I feel "bullied" and I dont like it, I don't like the "Vote yes OR ELSE"...... or else what?

Don't feel bullied but do vote for the right reasons. Nobody can make us do anything. We'll get our chance over the next few years to stick it to Fianna Fail, this just isn't that time.