What does a NO vote Mean?

Bob_Harris

Liam Byrne wrote: »

if we can't voice our opinion and vote no without risking being completely ostracised, then how the hell can it be democratic ?

Exactly.

Mary Hanafin was on "The Week in Politics" earlier tonight and as usual didn't come up with one good reason to vote Yes other than not to upset the EU by voting No.

It's like we are presented with this "choice" to change the way things work, but if we disagree with it, it's said it will reflect very badly on us. Not what you would call a "free" choice.

GerardKeating

K-9 wrote: »

So, What does your No vote mean?

We get to vote in Lisbon3 ?

tonycascarino

GerardKeating wrote: »

We get to vote in Lisbon3 ?

There more than likely will not be a Lisbon 3. Eurosceptic President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic is refusing to sign the Lisbon Treaty. There is strong rumours that he is holding off signing it to give Britain a referendum & there is a real strong chance that they will sink it.

heyjude

caseyann wrote: »

In fairness what if they do when the vote is no again this time?

If we vote No, OR if the Czech Republic fails to complete ratification(their president has delayed completing ratification), the Lisbon Treaty is probably dead,as the Tories will probably take control in Britain next year and they've promised a referendum on Lisbon. And its very doubtful that in the event of a British 'No' vote, that they(or we) would be asked to vote again, no matter what the British reasons for voting 'No'.

K-9

Would have hoped this would be a "why are you voting No thread", nothing else. I suppose this could be asked after the Referendum, but I'd suspect it would be derailed too. Could have been a decent thread.

On the 42% don't knows or whatever it is.

Come on, be honest.

One of the main slogans was "if you don't know, vote No".

It therefore follows...........................

Anyway, thread ruined, by Yes voters mostly I must admit.

No voters, you can't peddle "Vote No if you don't know" and then moan if 42% come back with the same answer.

Cop on.

Liam Byrne

K-9 wrote: »

On the 42% don't knows or whatever it is.

Come on, be honest.

:
:

Cop on.

I would have no problem being 100% honest if it weren't for the pathetic and dismissive "Cop on." at the end of your post.

But I'll still be honest.

There are a few bits of the Treaty that I don't like, in relation to "qualitative majority"; to be fair they're trying to be democratic, but they'll leave us (a small island on the outskirts of Europe whose needs are bound to be different to someplace like Germany or France) at a disadvantage.

I could, however, balance that with all of the road-building and development that the EU helped us with, and say "fair enough"; after all, those were paid for by taxes from other countries, and they could have cribbed about that.

The main issue, however, is STILL the fact that the new uber-democratic EU is even CONSIDERING going ahead with a two-track Europe if a constitutional referendum in this country says "no". That flies in the face of any motive being to make Europe more democratic.

So ironically, the reason that I might potentially vote no this time around is BECAUSE we're being forced to vote a second time.

Simple as. And if that's not blatantly obvious then it's not me that needs to "cop on". :rolleyes:

All that said, ANYTHING that takes ANY decisions away from the current shower of incompetents in Dail Eireann is welcome, and therein lies my dilemma.

K-9

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I would have no problem being 100% honest if it weren't for the pathetic and dismissive "Cop on." at the end of your post.

But I'll still be honest.

There are a few bits of the Treaty that I don't like, in relation to "qualitative majority"; to be fair they're trying to be democratic, but they'll leave us (a small island on the outskirts of Europe whose needs are bound to be different to someplace like Germany or France) at a disadvantage.

I could, however, balance that with all of the road-building and development that the EU helped us with, and say "fair enough"; after all, those were paid for by taxes from other countries, and they could have cribbed about that.

The main issue, however, is STILL the fact that the new uber-democratic EU is even CONSIDERING going ahead with a two-track Europe if a constitutional referendum in this country says "no". That flies in the face of any motive being to make Europe more democratic.

So ironically, the reason that I might potentially vote no this time around is BECAUSE we're being forced to vote a second time.

Simple as. And if that's not blatantly obvious then it's not me that needs to "cop on". :rolleyes:

All that said, ANYTHING that takes ANY decisions away from the current shower of incompetents in Dail Eireann is welcome, and therein lies my dilemma.

Look, you can't actively seek the Don't know votes and then moan when it comes back the main reason for voting No, was I don't know.

Some honesty please. I expect honesty from the Yes side AND the No side. Both sides need to COP ON.


On a kinder note, I accept your point on QMV. it already is in existence, you accept that?

Any examples of it over riding our wishes? I mean this genuinely. I'd be interested myself.

caseyann

Voltwad wrote: »

But I thought a Yes vote was being linked to paedophilia? :rolleyes:

Who said that dont try make me look thick,just because you think your smarter.I now see a clear discrimination against me as a woman and also as a no voter.

caseyann

Rb wrote: »

Excellent post, well done, you sure showed me.

Don't patronize me :rolleyes:

ei.sdraob

caseyann wrote: »

Who said that dont try make me look thick,just because you think your smarter.I now see a clear discrimination against me as a woman and also as a no voter.

@noodedog NO campaigner said that

noodedog wrote:

VOTE YES! - If you think they should legalise paedophilia. Look it up, that's true. Not a crime.

see for links and references to the incident
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62259213&postcount=4


/

caseyann

marco_polo wrote: »

Ancedotal evidence is a poor substitute.

What to numbers of a chosen particular group of people that i don't know:rolleyes: and who dont speak for me or my mistrust and worries over such a power over Ireland and what the later implications maybe.

caseyann

ei.sdraob wrote: »

@noodedog NO campaigner said that




see for links and references to the incident
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62259213&postcount=4


/

wow well i didnt read that
And he had no right to throw that at me trying to insult my intelligence. just because i dont agree.

caseyann

marco_polo wrote: »

Presumeably the treaty will remain unratified, just like the last time.

Yeah thats what they said the last time

ei.sdraob

caseyann wrote: »

wow well i didnt read that
And he had no right to throw that at me trying to insult my intelligence. just because i dont agree.

im just pointing out where it was said

please dont drag me into this handbag fight

/

caseyann

Rb wrote: »

Prove me wrong so.

How about giving us one reason to vote No based on the treaty alone? Now, considering how well read you are then I'm sure you're aware that the lies of Sinn Fein, Coir, Socialists etc don't count as a valid reason, so do please provide us with one well written paragraph, backed up by the text, as to why we should vote No.

First off do not assume i am getting my No vote from a political party like you are with your yes vote;)


Based on what i have read in the treaty i see to many clauses that maybe viewed one way and translated another by the EU commision.

“It will be for Ireland, acting in a spirit of solidarity and without prejudice to its traditional policy of military neutrality, to determine the nature of aid or assistance to be provided to a Member State which is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of armed aggression on its territory. Any decision to move to a common defence will require a unanimous decision of the European Council. It would be a matter for the Member States, including Ireland, to decide, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon and with their respective constitutional requirements, whether or not to adopt a common defence.”

This ?assurance’ is designed to counter interpretations of two Lisbon articles that o clearly edged the Union closer to a common defence. Article 28A.7 states that “If a member state is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other member states shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.” Article 188R (Title VII) of the Treaty (the so-called ?Solidarity Clause’) also discusses common (or collective) defence:

The Union and its Member States shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a Member State is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster.? The Union shall mobilise all the instruments at its disposal, including the military resources made available by the Member States, to

The Robert Schuman Foundation described this, not unreasonably, as “a vital step towards the development of European defence”.(3) There is certainly a tension here: the text of the Treaty says that states will be obliged to aid each other “by all means in their power”, but the ?assurance’ says that Ireland will itself “determine the nature of aid or assistance” to be extended to a member state under attack. So is the ?assurance’ saying that the Treaty does not mean what it seems to mean?? In the event of a dispute arising - e.g., Ireland choosing not to militarily assist another member state under attack but being challenged by other states that it was thereby not aiding and assisting? by all means in its power - will the text of the Treaty or the ?assurance’ take precedence?? The Treaty would trump the ?assurance’.

Indeed.? Which means, for example, that the aggressive policies (such as a commitment to the ?first use’ of nuclear weapons) of those EU members that are also NATO members are not constrained by the Treaty.


“It is also a matter for each Member State to decide, in accordance with the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty and any domestic legal requirements, whether to participate in permanent structured co-operation or the European Defence Agency.”

States who wish to ?do their own thing’ in relation to military affairs may do so under the Treaty’s provisions for PSC.? Articles 28A.6 and 28E, as well as a specific protocol on the issue, provide for sub-sets of EU countries (including those who wish to undertake actions consistent with their NATO membership) to pursue their own agendas for military integration and cooperation at European Union Military Staff (EUMS) level (at which Irish army officers participate), without necessarily involving all other Member States. ?Crucially, there is provision to “establish permanent structured cooperation within the Union framework” (article 28A.6, emphasis added), and this can be undertaken on the basis of a qualified majority vote within the EU Council.
As the ?assurance’ states, Ireland may choose not to participate directly in such initiatives (and would have no decision-making input if it chose not to so participate).? But by virtue of its participation in EUMS general business, and in all the other dimensions of EU military cooperation (including financing thereof), the argument can be made that Ireland will help lay the basis for other states to engage in such cooperation, and that such cooperation will be perceived (not without justification) as an EU undertaking even if not all EU members are directly involved.

As noted above, the Lisbon Treaty makes no reference to the requirement of a UN Mandate for an EU intervention; Ireland continues to insist that its own troops would never be deployed without such a mandate, but there is nothing to prevent troops from other countries (unavoidably backed up by Irish planning and financial resources) drawing on the support of the EU infrastructure to launch such an intervention.? In contrast to its lip service to the UN (rhetorically cited, but substantively absent),[4] the protocol on ?structured co-operation’ declares that “a more assertive union [EU] role … will contribute to the vitality of a renewed Atlantic Alliance [NATO].” Many commentators have concerns about enhancing the vitality of an alliance - NATO - that, amongst other regressive features, retains a commitment to the ?first use’ of nuclear weapons, and which has pursued an aggressive policy, involving substantial civilian casualties, in Afghanistan.


I was watching tis morning on the Lisbon debate,and seriously all i heard from yes side was it is crucial we vote yes to save our country from this economic down turn.I am hearing nothing else from them.
So many underlying possible interpretations in the Lisbon treaty which maybe handed to you one way.But once signed up nothing you can do when they say, oh that's not how it should have been translated.

Liam Byrne

K-9 wrote: »

Look, you can't actively seek the Don't know votes and then moan when it comes back the main reason for voting No, was I don't know.

I'm not seeking any votes; and there's no suggestion in my posts that "the main reason for voting No is I don't know".

The main reason I can see for voting No is because there's been no change to the treaty, and I don't trust the self-serving scheisters in the Dail to have sought the proper guarantees; when France and the UK voted against, the treaty was changed....what are the chances that ALL of our concerns were red herrings and were dealt with by "assurances" ? Seriously ? Every single one was an outside issue and could be dealt with without changing a single word of the treaty ? Wow!

marco_polo

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm not seeking any votes; and there's no suggestion in my posts that "the main reason for voting No is I don't know".

The main reason I can see for voting No is because there's been no change to the treaty, and I don't trust the self-serving scheisters in the Dail to have sought the proper guarantees; when France and the UK voted against, the treaty was changed....what are the chances that ALL of our concerns were red herrings and were dealt with by "assurances" ? Seriously ? Every single one was an outside issue and could be dealt with without changing a single word of the treaty ? Wow!

It is impossible to address everyones concerns and some of the main ones are addressed by the guarantees. There is a core of 'hard no' voters who's main concern is our membership of the EU, how would you go about addressing their concerns for example?

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm not seeking any votes; and there's no suggestion in my posts that "the main reason for voting No is I don't know".

The main reason I can see for voting No is because there's been no change to the treaty, and I don't trust the self-serving scheisters in the Dail to have sought the proper guarantees; when France and the UK voted against, the treaty was changed....what are the chances that ALL of our concerns were red herrings and were dealt with by "assurances" ? Seriously ? Every single one was an outside issue and could be dealt with without changing a single word of the treaty ? Wow!

Nobody claims that every single issue was dealt with - the ones that were dealt with will have been chosen to be those that didn't require a change to the Treaty. It's up to the people who voted on those issues whether they feel that enough has been done. People whose issues weren't addressed may rightly feel that their issues weren't addressed.

What major issues do you feel should have been addressed that weren't, and that would have resulted in a change to the Treaty?

cordially,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

marco_polo wrote: »

...There is a core of 'hard no' voters who's main concern is our membership of the EU, how would you go about addressing their concerns for example?

Some of them make it quite difficult, because they deny that they are opposed to EU membership.

There is another group of "hard no" voters that is even more difficult to please, and I believe they are at least as significant numerically as the Eurosceptics: the habitual nay-sayers, people who oppose everything in a spirit of contrarianism. I could name some advocates of a no vote that I believe to be in that camp, but I don't want to get into arguments about whether I am right in my beliefs or not.

K-9

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm not seeking any votes; and there's no suggestion in my posts that "the main reason for voting No is I don't know".

Of course, but the fact is the Govt. doesn't have to satisfy you personally.

Something like 42% voted because they didn't know or didn't understand. Others voted on issues that are clarified in the Guarantees.

Mozart1986

The point of a referendum is not to produce reasoned and valid arguments for a decision. To expect reasoned and rational arguments within a referendum is a luxury. One has debates for those things. A vote is just a vote. It is a means to solve a dispute without resorting to armed conflict which relies on an element of active will from all of those effected by the dispute, but is in a effect a coin toss because of how people actually think. People don't need to support their vote with anything but the pen and the ballot, thank God! Otherwise we would live in a tyranny of rationality.

Isaiah Berlin quotess:
Those who have ever valued liberty for its own sake believed that to be free to choose, and not to be chosen for, is an unalienable ingredient in what makes human beings human.

But to manipulate men, to propel them toward goals which you – the social reformers – see, but they may not, is to deny their human essence, to treat them as objects without wills of their own, and therefore to degrade them.

Referenda are not perfect. They promote waves of pathology and populist unreason. But as a principle they are binding. It is a good principle and the people that would wish to usurp it do not know or understand their history and all of the inhumane and brutalising things that were done (and still are in every continent, especially Africa) to human beings in the name of progress and the guise of benevolence.

The EU's main failing is that we have reached this juncture in the first place. If political cultures had been really at pains to bring people into the systems and institutions, thereby really creating a system the world has never seen before, then they would have done something worth my vote. But just for the mere fact that so many people are antagonistically de-railing the debate means that they do not <i>feel</i> part of the politcal discourse, which gives me a sense of paralysis. Ireland is divided between Europe and America, Democrates and Republicans, Right and Left, Personal responsibility and Social Justice, and people do NOT feel part of these discourses. Representative democracy gives them the feeling that they are, even if in fact they are not. To take that pretence of representation away is to open a can of worms that can't be closed easilly, especially with the Right-wing movements on the field again around Europe. Europe's best hope is to dive headong into Democracy, enriching our education systems and media services to counter the corruption of the US media, which all genuine socialists despise.

So to answer the question, my NO would mean an attempt to force Europe to become more democratic.
The real politic attitude would persuade me to grudgingly vote YES.

Noreen1

Rb wrote: »

Prove me wrong so.

How about giving us one reason to vote No based on the treaty alone? Now, considering how well read you are then I'm sure you're aware that the lies of Sinn Fein, Coir, Socialists etc don't count as a valid reason, so do please provide us with one well written paragraph, backed up by the text, as to why we should vote No.

Here's one. The referendum commission has acknowledged that European law supercedes Irish Law.
I have yet to hear any reasoned discussion on the effect of the attached Charter of Human Rights.

Here's another - The de-control of the Banking system in Ireland was as a direct result of an EU directive. There can be little doubt that this fuelled the Housing Boom, which contributed so effectively to our ecomonic problems. Low interest rates, also attributable to the EU, contributed significantly to our problems.
Surely, this is proof enough that centralised "government" or control, does not benefit the regions. Why then, would any reasoning human being vote for something that is detrimental to their own interests and the generations to come?

One final question. When the Government were castigated for mis-handling the economy, (and I am absolutely not a fan of that particular group) why did not one single TD quote the above contributary factors when challenged? Are they so afraid of their European cohorts that they are afraid to tell the plain truth to their own constituents?
Curious! There was a perfectly adequate excuse that they could have used, to at least help defend themselves, yet they chose not to. Rather strange, methinks!!

Noreen

Liam Byrne

OK, I appreciate the replies above re the guarantees.

So one final question; is there a written copy of those guarantees and is there anything to link them to the vote on Friday so that there's a record of them ?

And in case this looks like an untrusting EuroSceptic comment, it's not; it's the FF shower that I don't trust - as in "We have guarantees from FAS and Anglo Irish that there was nothing going on" (phrase not worth a ****) and then refusing point-blank to go back on arrangements entered into in good faith by us based on the dodgy ground of a guarantee that they didn't factor into the agreement.

ei.sdraob

Liam Byrne wrote: »

OK, I appreciate the replies above re the guarantees.

So one final question; is there a written copy of those guarantees and is there anything to link them to the vote on Friday so that there's a record of them ?

And in case this looks like an untrusting EuroSceptic comment, it's not; it's the FF shower that I don't trust - as in "We have guarantees from FAS and Anglo Irish that there was nothing going on" (phrase not worth a ****) and then refusing point-blank to go back on arrangements entered into in good faith by us based on the dodgy ground of a guarantee that they didn't factor into the agreement.

look at the stickies in this forum for more info

/

Sam Vimes

Noreen1 wrote: »

Here's one. The referendum commission has acknowledged that European law supercedes Irish Law.

As it has done since 1973:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

Noreen1 wrote: »

I have yet to hear any reasoned discussion on the effect of the attached Charter of Human Rights.

What discussion do you want exactly? Do you think people shouldn't have these rights or something?

Noreen1 wrote: »

Here's another - The de-control of the Banking system in Ireland was as a direct result of an EU directive. There can be little doubt that this fuelled the Housing Boom, which contributed so effectively to our ecomonic problems. Low interest rates, also attributable to the EU, contributed significantly to our problems.
Surely, this is proof enough that centralised "government" or control, does not benefit the regions. Why then, would any reasoning human being vote for something that is detrimental to their own interests and the generations to come?

I'm sure the rates were a factor but effective regulation could have prevented the problem. Instead our government did as much as possible to fuel the fire. This problem could have been avoided. And what does that have to do with the treaty?

Noreen1 wrote: »

One final question. When the Government were castigated for mis-handling the economy, (and I am absolutely not a fan of that particular group) why did not one single TD quote the above contributary factors when challenged? Are they so afraid of their European cohorts that they are afraid to tell the plain truth to their own constituents?

I've heard lots of people say the interest rates were a factor. It's undeniable.

Sam Vimes

Liam Byrne wrote: »

OK, I appreciate the replies above re the guarantees.

So one final question; is there a written copy of those guarantees and is there anything to link them to the vote on Friday so that there's a record of them ?

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/108622.pdf

(iii) the Decision is legally binding and will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;

K-9

Noreen1 wrote: »

Here's another - The de-control of the Banking system in Ireland was as a direct result of an EU directive. There can be little doubt that this fuelled the Housing Boom, which contributed so effectively to our ecomonic problems. Low interest rates, also attributable to the EU, contributed significantly to our problems.

Not sure if it was the EU. Anyway, the problem with that logic is yes there was low interest rates. Not necessarily a bad thing, like now. FF wasted that opportunity by giving tax breaks to developers and FTB's. Everything was aimed at property.

Those same interest rates could have been used to promote industry and not short term property bubbles. Basically, I think you are blaming the EU for our Govts. mistakes.

Take for example R&D. There have been some positive announcements on that front lately but our Govt. only started prioritising it recently. They wasted the opportunity.

Other countries are doing relatively ok now and starting to come out of the recession. We are left with the a spending bill with little income to pay it.

Liam Byrne

Sam Vimes wrote: »

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/108622.pdf

Thanks Sam!

So we're also - in essence - voting on this document on Friday; i.e. it's "part of" what we're voting for - 100% legally and irrevocably ?

That would put some of my mind to rest.

You've raised one slight "arrogance-related" issue, though:

(iii) the Decision is legally binding and will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;

If this is up for democratic vote, shouldn't that section say "if and when the Treaty is ratified / comes into force" or "pending acceptance of the Treaty" ?

MarkK

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You've raised one slight "arrogance-related" issue, though:

(iii) the Decision is legally binding and will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;

If this is up for democratic vote, shouldn't that section say "if and when the Treaty is ratified / comes into force" or "pending acceptance of the Treaty" ?

The date of entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty will only exist, if it fully ratified. It is a simple clear phrase with only one meaning.

Sam Vimes

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Thanks Sam!

So we're also - in essence - voting on this document on Friday; i.e. it's "part of" what we're voting for - 100% legally and irrevocably ?

Absolutely. That's the whole point of them

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You've raised one slight "arrogance-related" issue, though:

If this is up for democratic vote, shouldn't that section say "if and when the Treaty is ratified / comes into force" or "pending acceptance of the Treaty" ?

Maybe they could have worded it better, there's probably some technical legal reason for it