What does a NO vote Mean?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Absolutely. That's the whole point of them



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

I imagine they wanted it watertight, so no one could argue the point based on the word 'if', and I don't imagine for a second that someone wouldn't have tried...

Noreen1

K-9 wrote: »

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.

True. Low interest rates are not necessarily a bad thing. And, yes, the ability of the Government to completely mismanage the economy is truly breathtaking. A good education system, and R&D are the fundamental cornerstones of a thriving economy. Whereas some small measures are now being taken in R&D, sadly the Government seems committed to decimating our already underfunded education system.

However, when a country loses the ability to control its own interest rates, it is undeniably more difficult to control the economy. When we elect fools to Dail Eireann, the problem certainly becomes worse, but, nevertheless, control of interest rates is vital in controlling a small economy.

Noreen

K-9

Noreen1 wrote: »

True. Low interest rates are not necessarily a bad thing. And, yes, the ability of the Government to completely mismanage the economy is truly breathtaking. A good education system, and R&D are the fundamental cornerstones of a thriving economy. Whereas some small measures are now being taken in R&D, sadly the Government seems committed to decimating our already underfunded education system.

However, when a country loses the ability to control its own interest rates, it is undeniably more difficult to control the economy. When we elect fools to Dail Eireann, the problem certainly becomes worse, but, nevertheless, control of interest rates is vital in controlling a small economy.

Noreen

True, but having control would mean we'd have to leave the Euro.

We had control for years and it didn't really matter to much!

vanla sighs

K-9 wrote: »

So, What does your No vote mean?

It means I'm pro-EU but anti-Lisbon.

It means I want the democratic will of the Irish people as expressed through a free and fair referendum in 2008 to be respected.

It means I believe in democracy.

It means I want Ireland to keep her vetos in numerous areas.

It means I want to ensure there is an open and free debate on the future direction of the EU.

It means I don't want our voting strength reduced while that of the bigger member States is increased.

It means I don't want the political elites to think that they can in effect force the Irish people to change their minds through lies and scaremongering. We already voted on Lisbon and we said NO. The Lisbon Treaty has not changed, not one comma, not one word. It is the very same treaty we already rejected. Look at it this way, the French rejected the Constitutional Treaty, and that was fine. The Dutch rejected the Constitutional Treaty, and that was fine. The Irish rejected the Lisbon Treaty,........oh no, they made a mistake, they gave the wrong answer.....vote again. Em, no, not fine.

Come Friday I'm voting No and I'm going to be out canvassing for a No tomorrow, Thursday and possibly Friday (and you actually are allowed to canvass on polling day according to the Dept of Enviornment who I spoke with today) I've already been canvassing this week and last week in Cork City centre and I'm getting a very good response. We'll see what's what come Friday.........

Sam Vimes

vanla sighs wrote: »

It means I'm pro-EU but anti-Lisbon.

It means I want the democratic will of the Irish people as expressed through a free and fair referendum in 2008 to be respected.

It means I believe in democracy.

It means I want Ireland to keep her vetos in numerous areas.

It means I want to ensure there is an open and free debate on the future direction of the EU.

It means I don't want our voting strength reduced while that of the bigger member States is increased.

It means I don't want the political elites to think that they can in effect force the Irish people to change their minds through lies and scaremongering. We already voted on Lisbon and we said NO. The Lisbon Treaty has not changed, not one comma, not one word. It is the very same treaty we already rejected. Look at it this way, the French rejected the Constitutional Treaty, and that was fine. The Dutch rejected the Constitutional Treaty, and that was fine. The Irish rejected the Lisbon Treaty,........oh no, they made a mistake, they gave the wrong answer.....vote again. Em, no, not fine.

Come Friday I'm voting No and I'm going to be out canvassing for a No tomorrow, Thursday and possibly Friday (and you actually are allowed to canvass on a Friday) I've already been canvassing this week and last week in Cork City centre and I'm getting a very good response. We'll see what's what come Friday.........

Right so the only thing from the treaty you object to is the move to QMV because our composite voting weight is actually increasing slightly and the rest aren't problems with the treaty

Which areas are you particular worried about moving to QMV and what specifically do you want to avoid?

vanla sighs

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Right so the only thing from the treaty you object to is the move to QMV because our composite voting weight is actually increasing slightly and the rest aren't problems with the treaty

Which areas are you particular worried about moving to QMV and what specifically do you want to avoid?

I don't particularly want QMV at all. There are other issues in the treaty which concern me, ranging from militarisation to death penalty to unelected President and so on and so on. The biggie for me is the usurping of Irish democracy. For good or bad the people voted, it is not right that the democratic will of the people should be invalidated. No means No, it doesn't mean maybe.

namloc1980

vanla sighs wrote: »

It means I'm pro-EU but anti-Lisbon.

It means I want the democratic will of the Irish people as expressed through a free and fair referendum in 2008 to be respected.

It means I believe in democracy.

It means I want Ireland to keep her vetos in numerous areas.

It means I want to ensure there is an open and free debate on the future direction of the EU.

It means I don't want our voting strength reduced while that of the bigger member States is increased.

It means I don't want the political elites to think that they can in effect force the Irish people to change their minds through lies and scaremongering. We already voted on Lisbon and we said NO. The Lisbon Treaty has not changed, not one comma, not one word. It is the very same treaty we already rejected. Look at it this way, the French rejected the Constitutional Treaty, and that was fine. The Dutch rejected the Constitutional Treaty, and that was fine. The Irish rejected the Lisbon Treaty,........oh no, they made a mistake, they gave the wrong answer.....vote again. Em, no, not fine.

Come Friday I'm voting No and I'm going to be out canvassing for a No tomorrow, Thursday and possibly Friday (and you actually are allowed to canvass on a Friday) I've already been canvassing this week and last week in Cork City centre and I'm getting a very good response. We'll see what's what come Friday.........

It means we will lose our influence in Europe. While we will remain within the EU but it is almost certain the rest will move on without us and we will the bold little child in the corner instead of being at the heart of the EU.

It means we will lose our Commissioner (reduction in Commissioners is already provided for in the current Nice Treaty) and will be in a very weak bargaining position to regain it anytime soon. Lisbon II guarantees everyone will have a commissioner.


Other lies being put around about the "big bad undemocratic EU". A 2nd referendum is not undemocratic as is being spouted around for the last few weeks. Nor is it undemocratic for the other EU states to ratify the treaty through their parliaments without a referendum. The US Constitution has never been put before the people of the USA nor have any of the amendments made to it ever been put to public referendum.....is that undemocratic?? Of course not.

K-9

vanla sighs wrote: »

I don't particularly want QMV at all. There are other issues in the treaty which concern me, ranging from militarisation to death penalty to unelected President and so on and so on. The biggie for me is the usurping of Irish democracy. For good or bad the people voted, it is not right that the democratic will of the people should be invalidated. No means No, it doesn't mean maybe.

But they can. Should FF stay in Govt. for 5 years?

Rb

caseyann wrote: »

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.

Hi,

I only asked you as I suspected you couldn't come up with an answer yourself and sure enough that is what you've proven here.

Direct copy/paste from http://www.irishleftreview.org/2009/06/19/commentary-draft-assurances-lisbon-security-defence/

Thanks for that, "your" opinions in the matter are now pretty much worthless, good luck with it.

vanla sighs

namloc1980 wrote: »

It means we will lose our influence in Europe. While we will remain within the EU but it is almost certain the rest will move on without us and we will the bold little child in the corner instead of being at the heart of the EU.

It means we will lose our Commissioner (reduction in Commissioners is already provided for in the current Nice Treaty) and will be in a very weak bargaining position to regain it anytime soon. Lisbon II guarantees everyone will have a commissioner.


Other lies being put around about the "big bad undemocratic EU". A 2nd referendum is not undemocratic as is being spouted around for the last few weeks. Nor is it undemocratic for the other EU states to ratify the treaty through their parliaments without a referendum. The US Constitution has never been put before the people of the USA nor have any of the amendments made to it ever been put to public referendum.....is that undemocratic?? Of course not.

And how exactly do we lose our "influence" in the EU? You seem certain that a 2 speed EU will emerge, huh, the current Swedish Presidency of the EU don't share your opinion....but then I'm sure you know better than the current EU Presidency. We'll be the "bold" child for expressing our democratic and constitutional rights is that it? Rubbish.

We lose our Commissioner......hmmmm, are you sure about that? Who told you that? As far as I understand it the Commission will have to be reduced but where does it say Ireland will lose its Commissioner? It doesn't. That is like saying if Lisbon falls again (and it's looking likely) that Germany will lose its Commissioner. :rolleyes:

It IS undemocratic to ignore the results of a free and fair referendum and to then in turn ask, force, the people to vote yet again on the VERY SAME TREATY, of which not a comma has been changed.

namloc1980

vanla sighs wrote: »

I don't particularly want QMV at all. There are other issues in the treaty which concern me, ranging from militarisation to death penalty to unelected President and so on and so on. The biggie for me is the usurping of Irish democracy. For good or bad the people voted, it is not right that the democratic will of the people should be invalidated. No means No, it doesn't mean maybe.

:eek: How many times does it have to be said.....a 2nd referendum is NOT UNDEMOCRATIC! Please show us all where the last referendum was "invalidated"?? Last time I checked the result was a NO...not a maybe!

K-9

vanla sighs wrote: »

Well we had local and EU Elections and they ignored the result and didn't call a General Election.

namloc1980

vanla sighs wrote: »

And how exactly do we lose our "influence" in the EU? You seem certain that a 2 speed EU will emerge, huh, the current Swedish Presidency of the EU don't share your opinion....but then I'm sure you know better than the current EU Presidency. We'll be the "bold" child for expressing our democratic and constitutional rights is that it? Rubbish.

We lose our Commissioner......hmmmm, are you sure about that? Who told you that? As far as I understand it the Commission will have to be reduced but where does it say Ireland will lose its Commissioner? It doesn't. That is like saying if Lisbon falls again (and it's looking likely) that Germany will lose its Commissioner. :rolleyes:

It IS undemocratic to ignore the results of a free and fair referendum and to then in turn ask, force, the people to vote yet again on the VERY SAME TREATY, of which not a comma has been changed.

:rolleyes: Good God! Your points get more desperate.

The Italian government recently said that if Ireland voted No a 2 speed EU would be the only alternative for the other members who wish to move forward. It will happen, have no doubts.

Reduction in Commissioners will happen under Nice and you can bet right now Ireland's commissioner will be the first to go....I suppose you can guarantee the opposite. Ireland will be in no position at all to negotiate retention of it's commissioner if Lisbon fails again.

Once again the old chestnut....IT IS NOT UNDEMOCRATIC. Good god. :rolleyes:

namloc1980

K-9 wrote: »

Well we had local and EU Elections and they ignored the result and didn't call a General Election.

I wasn't aware that there was a provision in Irish Law that a General Election had to be called after local and EU elections were 'ignored' as you say.

namloc1980

jaceks wrote: »

Read, what they think in Poland http://saveeuropeireland.niepoprawni.pl/.
We had no chance in referendum in Poland, as the Lisbon is snaking the back door here.
Poland only 20 years ago recovered from communism, and the things in UE turn the same what we know since after WW2.
Irish, please, bear in mind, you are given the chance!

One big reason to vote YES.

GO AWAY!!

Rb

jaceks wrote: »

Read, what they think in Poland http://saveeuropeireland.niepoprawni.pl/.
We had no chance in referendum in Poland, as the Lisbon is snaking the back door here.
Poland only 20 years ago recovered from communism, and the things in UE turn the same what we know since after WW2.
Irish, please, bear in mind, you are given the chance!

Stop spamming this site.

If you're unhappy with your voting system, speak to your Government. It is none of our concern. If you're unhappy with being in the EU, well, hilarious as that is as polish workers have undoubtedly benefitted from freedom of movement more than anyone else, but at least Lisbon brings in the ability to leave, so you can soon opt out should you wish. However, if you do then I would ask that you get your comrades to come home.

Good luck - Jebaj Sie.

ei.sdraob

jaceks wrote: »

Read, what they think in Poland http://saveeuropeireland.niepoprawni.pl/.
We had no chance in referendum in Poland, as the Lisbon is snaking the back door here.
Poland only 20 years ago recovered from communism, and the things in UE turn the same what we know since after WW2.
Irish, please, bear in mind, you are given the chance!

werent you banned?

oh and lets not forget

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62294693&postcount=68

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I put some of the comments on that polish site into some Polish->English translators and some of them come back with references to 'reclaiming Poland from the Jew criminals who took over in 1946'.

Just to give people an idea of the mentality you are dealing with it if you try to reason with anyone associated with or supporting that site.

Post #64 for example.

żyda zbrodniarza = Jewish criminals.

and


http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62287251&postcount=145


/

vanla sighs

Rb wrote: »

Stop spamming this site.

If you're unhappy with your voting system, speak to your Government. It is none of our concern. If you're unhappy with being in the EU, well, hilarious as that is as polish workers have undoubtedly benefitted from freedom of movement more than anyone else, but at least Lisbon brings in the ability to leave, so you can soon opt out should you wish. However, if you do then I would ask that you get your comrades to come home.

Good luck - Jebaj Sie.

A member State can decide to leave the EU at any time it wants to. It isn't dependant on the Lisbon Treaty.....

vanla sighs

K-9 wrote: »

Well we had local and EU Elections and they ignored the result and didn't call a General Election.

Because they didn't lose power. The Greens are propping them up. I wish we had had a general election, soon enough though.....possibly in a few weeks time ........depends on Lisbon.

prinz

vanla sighs wrote: »

A member State can decide to leave the EU at any time it wants to. It isn't dependant on the Lisbon Treaty.....

Lisbon would make it much easier, clearer and simpler. As it is there's no real roadmap for leaving.

vanla sighs wrote: »

I wish we had had a general election, soon enough though.....possibly in a few weeks time ........depends on Lisbon.

It doesn't. No reason to think a vote of no confidence would pass tbh regardless of the outcome of Lisbon. Either way there are only 3 parties with a real possibility of being in power, and they all support Lisbon. Lisbon Referendum III ftw.

andrewdeerpark

Would the last of our brighest when they leave please turn off the lights and leave the remainder to read by candle light, back to DeValera's Ireland; dark nights, tales of the banshee, clergy abusing childern under an ignorant god fearing society.

No thanks, this country is worth more than that to me...Yes all the way.

K-9

namloc1980 wrote: »

I wasn't aware that there was a provision in Irish Law that a General Election had to be called after local and EU elections were 'ignored' as you say.

Exactly. There isn't anything on not running another Referenda either.

K-9

vanla sighs wrote: »

Because they didn't lose power. The Greens are propping them up. I wish we had had a general election, soon enough though.....possibly in a few weeks time ........depends on Lisbon.

The Greens aren't propping them up, they are keeping themselves in as they know they'll be decimated if there is a GE. Unfortunately, their very existence will be more important to them than Lisbon.

vanla sighs

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

Would the last of our brighest when they leave please turn off the lights and leave the remainder to read by candle light, back to DeValera's Ireland; dark nights, tales of the banshee, clergy abusing childern under an ignorant god fearing society.

No thanks, this country is worth more than that to me...Yes all the way.

What on earth are you talking about? Back to Dev's Ireland......lol Do you even know what the Lisbon Treaty is about? A No simply means we continue under the status quo, a No preserves democracy and keeps us in the EU.......but maybe you think this a vote on EU membership....lmao

vanla sighs

K-9 wrote: »

Exactly. There isn't anything on not running another Referenda either.

Ignoring the democratic result of a free and fair referendum is by its very nature undemocratic. Whether technically it can or cannot be done is not the point, the point is that doing so is in essence invalidating the democratic will of the people and that is wrong.

andrewdeerpark

vanla sighs wrote: »

What on earth are you talking about? Back to Dev's Ireland......lol Do you even know what the Lisbon Treaty is about? A No simply means we continue under the status quo, a No preserves democracy and keeps us in the EU.......but maybe you think this a vote on EU membership....lmao

I have one sentence for you:

To stand still is to go backwards

That is a proven fact in business and life, as a country we must continue to progress at the main political negotiation table or risk isolation. Unfortunately our past boom not only gave us NAMA but an inflated opinion of ourselves (arrogance). Our best days were the 90's to 2003 the years we diligently and quietly built up our wealth through honest hard work and endeavour, plus we were universally liked around the world. Time to knuckle down again and work our diplomacy quietly behind the scenes.

K-9

vanla sighs wrote: »

Ignoring the democratic result of a free and fair referendum is by its very nature undemocratic. Whether technically it can or cannot be done is not the point, the point is that doing so is in essence invalidating the democratic will of the people and that is wrong.

Guarantees are new. They mightn't be important to you, but they maybe important to others.

namloc1980

vanla sighs wrote: »

Ignoring the democratic result of a free and fair referendum is by its very nature undemocratic. Whether technically it can or cannot be done is not the point, the point is that doing so is in essence invalidating the democratic will of the people and that is wrong.

Where is the invalidation happening?? You really need to enlighten us all as to where the Irish Government 'invalidated' the result of the last poll.

vanla sighs

namloc1980 wrote: »

Where is the invalidation happening?? You really need to enlighten us all as to where the Irish Government 'invalidated' the result of the last poll.

By not respecting the democratic will of the Irish people the government in essence invalidated that result. We voted on the Treaty of Lisbon, we rejected it. By putting the very same treaty back before the people again when they have just rejected that very same treaty is usurping democracy. The Lisbon Treaty has not changed. We rejected the Lisbon Treaty.

Dinner

vanla sighs wrote: »

By not respecting the democratic will of the Irish people the government in essence invalidated that result. We voted on the Treaty of Lisbon, we rejected it. By putting the very same treaty back before the people again when they have just rejected that very same treaty is usurping democracy. The Lisbon Treaty has not changed. We rejected the Lisbon Treaty.

How come you never mention the work that went on between votes to find out and satisfy the concerns held by the public?