What does a NO vote Mean?

K-9

So, What does your No vote mean?

roosh

to me it means a number of things:

• It means I am not willing to accept emoty rhetoric and scaremongering from the political parties of this country
  
• It means that I am not happy with the way that the European governements have sought to ratify this treaty by not allowing their people to vote, and by trying to con us into voting yes - see empty rhetoric and scaremongering above
  
• It means I do not want an increase in militarisation in Europe, especially not driven by the armaments industry.
  

They are some of the things

The Volt

mangaroosh wrote: »

to me it means a number of things:

• It means I am not willing to accept emoty rhetoric and scaremongering from the political parties of this country
  
  But ready to accept blatant, disgraceful lying and extreme scaremongering from the no side.
  
  
  
• It means that I am not happy with the way that the European governements have sought to ratify this treaty by not allowing their people to vote, and by trying to con us into voting yes - see empty rhetoric and scaremongering above
  
  We elect these people democratically to make informed, complex decisions for us. If people aren't bothered educating themselves on the treaty then it is far better off to not have a referendum and leave it to the experts. If that doesn't suit you then there are plenty of EU skeptics that you can democratically elect. The fact that we have to have a referendum for this at all is nothing but an extreme hassle and a window of oppertunity to the same people that have been against the EU from day one.
  
  
  
• It means I do not want an increase in militarisation in Europe, especially not driven by the armaments industry.
  
  Why always think in the worst and the most conspiritoral manner? Countering terrorism and peace-keeping would be two key things necessary to this day and age. Evil thrives when good people do nothing.
  

They are some of the things

Any more?

Scofflaw

I don't wish to prevent discussion, but I presume that this thread is rather more for the No voters to say what it means to them than for anyone to oppose their reasons.

moderately,
Scofflaw

The Volt

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't wish to prevent discussion, but I presume that this thread is rather more for the No voters to say what it means to them than for anyone to oppose their reasons.

moderately,
Scofflaw

No worries so, I'll butt out, still waiting for a goos reason though

MarkK

It means, rest of Europe go eff yourselves.

Kev_ps3

It means im anti-EU

ei.sdraob

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

It means im anti-EU

ontop of that it means

you are very gullible and fall (and thank!) for clear lies

such as this one here


/

Furious-Dave

Being anti-EU is almost the same as being anti-Irish prosperity.

Kev_ps3

Furious-Dave wrote: »

Being anti-EU is almost the same as being anti-Irish prosperity.

nonsence:rolleyes:

ei.sdraob

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

nonsence:rolleyes:

where is the billions of money coming from

to continue paying highest welfare allowances and public sector salaries in the world


/

Noreen1

For me it means:

I am offended at our Governments rush to assure their counterparts in Brussels that the Irish people didn't know what they were voting for in Lisbon1 - in short, the Irish electorate are too stupid to make their own informed decisions. Had we voted "Yes" I wonder would that have been because we were ill-informed also.

I do not appreciate veiled threats from foreign ministers about the consequences of a no vote.

I dislike the suggestion from the Yes side that a Yes vote guarantees financial security - would they seriously expect us to believe that a Yes vote means our EU partners, who are in recession themselves, would suddenly find the money and jobs to solve the Irish crises?? I believe they have their own voters to answer to.

Finally, I really fear the European justice system. Having a justice system similar to America's lobby system is appalling. Being Democratic to me means that the justice system should work on behalf of ordinary citizens, and not be influenced by lobbyists who are paid fortunes by Multinational Corporations to influence/change the law to maximise their profit margins.

I am not anti-Europe. I have genuine concerns about the direction Europe is heading, and, frankly, the domineering, bully-boy tactics being employed by some of the "Yes" advocates strongly reinforces my concerns.

Finally, whatever happened to the assurances that if any country failed to ratify the treaty, then it would not be implemented.
If that promise wasn't kept, why should I believe any"assurances" that the same people now give??

Noreen

Kev_ps3

ei.sdraob wrote: »

where is the billions of money coming from

to continue paying highest welfare allowances and public sector salaries in the world


/

here's a wild idea, cut them and live within our means.

Pedro K

K-9 wrote: »

So, What does your No vote mean?

Same thing it meant last time.

K-9

Noreen1 wrote: »

Finally, whatever happened to the assurances that if any country failed to ratify the treaty, then it would not be implemented.
If that promise wasn't kept, why should I believe any"assurances" that the same people now give??

Noreen

That promise was kept.

Anyway, just thought I'd start a thread for No voters to state their reasons.

Rb

I don't know what a tracker mortgage Lisbon Treaty is.

Bob_Harris

Rb wrote: »

I don't know what a tracker mortgage Lisbon Treaty is.

Every person I know, in "real life", who intends to vote yes hasn't a clue what is in the Lisbon Treaty.

I ask them why vote yes and the reel off the "Europe has been good to us" line.

amacachi

Bob_Harris wrote: »

Every person I know, in "real life", who intends to vote yes hasn't a clue what is in the Lisbon Treaty.

I ask them why vote yes and the reel off the "Europe has been good to us" line.

And anyone I know who is voting No is doing it due to the minimum wage and farming issues. Wait, they're not in the treaty? Almost like they don't know either what they're voting on.

Noreen1

K-9 wrote: »

That promise was kept.

Anyway, just thought I'd start a thread for No voters to state their reasons.

With all due respect, I wouldn't describe the pressure that was applied to have a second referendum as keeping that promise. More a case of "Oh, the stupid Irish got it wrong, let's send them back to the drawing board so they can get it right next time."

Last week, I actually had a German national, who lives and works in Ireland, actually demand that the Irish vote "Yes". I stated my concerns clearly and politely, and resisted the temptation to enter the kind of slanging match he had in mind. This is an attitude I have come across all too often from the Yes campaigners (excluding yourself!), and I honestly cannot understand why so many people have such an arrogant attitude to peoples fundamental, democratic, right to choose.

Noreen

caseyann

Noreen1 wrote: »

For me it means:

I am offended at our Governments rush to assure their counterparts in Brussels that the Irish people didn't know what they were voting for in Lisbon1 - in short, the Irish electorate are too stupid to make their own informed decisions. Had we voted "Yes" I wonder would that have been because we were ill-informed also.

I do not appreciate veiled threats from foreign ministers about the consequences of a no vote.

I dislike the suggestion from the Yes side that a Yes vote guarantees financial security - would they seriously expect us to believe that a Yes vote means our EU partners, who are in recession themselves, would suddenly find the money and jobs to solve the Irish crises?? I believe they have their own voters to answer to.

Finally, I really fear the European justice system. Having a justice system similar to America's lobby system is appalling. Being Democratic to me means that the justice system should work on behalf of ordinary citizens, and not be influenced by lobbyists who are paid fortunes by Multinational Corporations to influence/change the law to maximise their profit margins.

I am not anti-Europe. I have genuine concerns about the direction Europe is heading, and, frankly, the domineering, bully-boy tactics being employed by some of the "Yes" advocates strongly reinforces my concerns.

Finally, whatever happened to the assurances that if any country failed to ratify the treaty, then it would not be implemented.
If that promise wasn't kept, why should I believe any"assurances" that the same people now give??

Noreen

+1 Great post

caseyann

Noreen1 wrote: »

With all due respect, I wouldn't describe the pressure that was applied to have a second referendum as keeping that promise. More a case of "Oh, the stupid Irish got it wrong, let's send them back to the drawing board so they can get it right next time."

Last week, I actually had a German national, who lives and works in Ireland, actually demand that the Irish vote "Yes". I stated my concerns clearly and politely, and resisted the temptation to enter the kind of slanging match he had in mind. This is an attitude I have come across all too often from the Yes campaigners (excluding yourself!), and I honestly cannot understand why so many people have such an arrogant attitude to peoples fundamental, democratic, right to choose.

Noreen

I totally agree with you.It is basically telling the Irish voter you are thick and you have to vote yes that's the right way to vote,even if you don't agree with it.
So majority of no voters are dumb in the eyes of the government:rolleyes:

Dinner

Noreen1 wrote: »

More a case of "Oh, the stupid Irish got it wrong, let's send them back to the drawing board so they can get it right next time."

In all fairness, thats just not true. The only people who have taken that attitude has been no voters who act like yes voters either said or implied that.

It's not and never has been a case of 'wrong answer, try again', although that is a great line that no campaigners use to make it seem like yes campaigners are arrogant.

The situation has been 'Tell us why you voted no so we can try to sort out your concerns'. I don't think it's undemocratic for the government and the EU to address those concerns and ask us to vote again.

I woudl think it more undemocratic to not bother their holes finding out why we voted no and just scrap the whole thing, ready to make the same mistakes again.

ParkRunner

Dinner wrote: »

The situation has been 'Tell us why you voted no so we can try to sort out your concerns'. I don't think it's undemocratic for the government and the EU to address those concerns and ask us to vote again.

.

They are making a habit of asking us to vote again until we get the answer right!

Dinner

EF wrote: »

They are making a habit of asking us to vote again until we get the answer right!

And an awful habit of addressing our concerns and issuing us with legally binding agreements. The dogs!

caseyann

Dinner wrote: »

In all fairness, thats just not true. The only people who have taken that attitude has been no voters who act like yes voters either said or implied that.

It's not and never has been a case of 'wrong answer, try again', although that is a great line that no campaigners use to make it seem like yes campaigners are arrogant.

The situation has been 'Tell us why you voted no so we can try to sort out your concerns'. I don't think it's undemocratic for the government and the EU to address those concerns and ask us to vote again.

I woudl think it more undemocratic to not bother their holes finding out why we voted no and just scrap the whole thing, ready to make the same mistakes again.

Who did they ask that question?

The Volt

EF wrote: »

They are making a habit of asking us to vote again until we get the answer right!

Where have you been the last year or so?

Rb

caseyann wrote: »

Who did they ask that question?

Are you serious?

amacachi

caseyann wrote: »

I totally agree with you.It is basically telling the Irish voter you are thick and you have to vote yes that's the right way to vote,even if you don't agree with it.
So majority of no voters are dumb in the eyes of the government:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland_Bill,_2008#Reasons_for_rejection

Rb

caseyann wrote: »

So majority of no voters are dumb in the eyes of the government:rolleyes:

If the posters pushing for a No on here represent the average, then such an assumption would indeed be correct.

caseyann

amacachi wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland_Bill,_2008#Reasons_for_rejection

wiki :eek: Please dont try give me that stuff

Dinner

caseyann wrote: »

Who did they ask that question?

Through statistically accurate surveys. The government commissioned a company called Millward Brown to do a study to find out why people voted no (and yes). 42% of no voters said they didn't understand it and 26% voted no for reasons that were solved by the guarantees.

They asked 1600 people which gives a margin of error of 2-3% when scaled up to larger population sizes. I think I should point out at this stage that it is based on solid maths. As I'm sure you know statistics makes up a whole branch of Maths so it's more than just a glorified opinion poll and it is more than just 'accurate for the people who were asked'.