What does a NO vote Mean?

Red_Marauder

What a no-vote means to me: a quite positive and optimistic pro-European acceptance that things are working pretty well as things stand. It isn't really broken, it doesn't need to be fixed, leave the damn EU alone. We have always done pretty well out of it, we continue to do so. Don't screw that up by moving chairs around and voting yes.

There is no economic benefit to changing a system we currently rely heavily on.

Mikefitzs

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If voting to move something from unanimity to QMV would effect our constitution the Taoiseach would be legally required to veto it or have a referendum before approving it

Is it not the council of ministers who will decide that? We will be counting on our ministers in Europe to oppose that type of change not the Taoiseach?

bladespin

My no vote means:

I object to being told to rethink my decision in the first place (emotion getting the better of me I'm afraid).
I'm not thick enough to vote yes to the same treaty again not even reworded.
Europe works fine as it is, why mess about with it.
We're already drowning under a wave of beaurocracy (Irish and European), why add more?
It stinks of a future United states of Europe.
A no vopte doesn't mean we leave Europe in any way so why is it so desperately important, gets the old conspiracy theorist in me going.

marco_polo

Mikefitzs wrote: »

Is it not the council of ministers who will decide that? We will be counting on our ministers in Europe to oppose that type of change not the Taoiseach?

The European Council in which the Heads of State meet is the one that would decide on such matters.

A piece of legislation would need to be drawn up in order ratify a change to QMV in the Oireachtas. The constitutionality of the legislation could be challenged in the supreme court the same as any other.

Sam Vimes

Mikefitzs wrote: »

Is it not the council of ministers who will decide that? We will be counting on our ministers in Europe to oppose that type of change not the Taoiseach?

They can't legally make unconstitutional decisions any more than I can legally decide to kill someone

Sam Vimes

bladespin wrote: »

My no vote means:

I object to being told to rethink my decision in the first place (emotion getting the better of me I'm afraid).
I'm not thick enough to vote yes to the same treaty again not even reworded.
Europe works fine as it is, why mess about with it.
We're already drowning under a wave of beaurocracy (Irish and European), why add more?
It stinks of a future United states of Europe.
A no vopte doesn't mean we leave Europe in any way so why is it so desperately important, gets the old conspiracy theorist in me going.

You give six reasons that have nothing to do with the treaty and are angry that you were asked to rethink your decision?

StealthRolex

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You've been around this forum long enough to know that's not true.

I can read my polling well enough to see that it details the Treaty and does not mention the guarantees.

If this was tested in court you would find that the vote on Oct 2 2009 is a vote on amending the Constitution as required by the Treaty.

As for the guarantees - that is a matter of faith - or you can book a trip to the UN at your leisure.

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

I can read my polling well enough to see that it details the Treaty and does not mention the guarantees.

If this was tested in court you would find that the vote on Oct 2 2009 is a vote on amending the Constitution as required by the Treaty.

As for the guarantees - that is a matter of faith - or you can book a trip to the UN at your leisure.

You make me want to cry you really do. The guarantees are binding. This is as certain as the knowledge that the sun will rise tomorrow. It's a matter of faith in the same way that it's a matter of faith that if you drop something it will fall. Either you have been tricked by extremists or you are an extremist trying to trick others. Either way the guarantees are still binding

StealthRolex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

They can't legally make unconstitutional decisions any more than I can legally decide to kill someone

Is thought crime actually a criminal act now?

You can legally decide to kill someone - nothing illegal there as long as you don't actually kill them.:rolleyes:

You might be charged with intimidation or threatening behaviour if your target discovers your intentions, but only if they find our or you decide to tell them and then go ahead and tell them.

Deciding to do something and actually carrying it out are two completely different actions.

Now I know that's not what you meant in much the same way as I know that when the government says vote yes for jobs, yes for recovery and yes to stay in Europe they don't actually mean that voting yes will actually bring jobs, recovery or any of their other political promises .

StealthRolex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You make me want to cry you really do. The guarantees are binding. This is as certain as the knowledge that the sun will rise tomorrow. It's a matter of faith in the same way that it's a matter of faith that if you drop something it will fall. Either you have been tricked by extremists or you are an extremist trying to trick others. Either way the guarantees are still binding

But the guarantees don't deal with the core issues of what is wrong with the Treaty.

Look - it's very simple. Either you want the Treaty passed for whatever agenda you support or you don't.

You do - I don't. Simple as. the Guarantees are FUD

namloc1980

StealthRolex wrote: »

But the guarantees don't deal with the core issues of what is wrong with the Treaty.

What are the core issues as you see them?

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

Is thought crime actually a criminal act now?

You can legally decide to kill someone - nothing illegal there as long as you don't actually kill them.:rolleyes:

You might be charged with intimidation or threatening behaviour if your target discovers your intentions, but only if they find our or you decide to tell them and then go ahead and tell them.

Deciding to do something and actually carrying it out are two completely different actions.

Now I know that's not what you meant in much the same way as I know that when the government says vote yes for jobs, yes for recovery and yes to stay in Europe they don't actually mean that voting yes will actually bring jobs, recovery or any of their other political promises .

No one ever said "Yes to stay in Europe" except people on the no side. The other things are made considerably more likely by a yes vote because it creates confidence and a no vote creates uncertainty. Confidence fuels recovery and uncertainty fuels recessions

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

But the guarantees don't deal with the core issues of what is wrong with the Treaty.

Look - it's very simple. Either you want the Treaty passed for whatever agenda you support or you don't.

You do - I don't. Simple as. the Guarantees are FUD

No in fact the lying extremist c*nts who are saying the guarantees aren't binding are spreading FUD.

As namloc1980 asked, What are the core issues as you see them?

StealthRolex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No in fact the lying extremist c*nts who are saying the guarantees aren't binding are spreading FUD.

What about the lying extremist c*nts who are guaranteeing jobs and recovery?

Not to mention the veiled threat - "We belong - you decide"

StealthRolex

[QUOTE=Sam Vimes;62337011

As namloc1980 asked, What are the core issues as you see them?[/QUOTE]

Arts.1 and 47 TEU; Declaration 17

Art.6 TEU

Art.9 TEU

Art.15 TEU

Art.311 TFEU

Art.42 TEU

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

What about the lying extremist c*nts who are guaranteeing jobs and recovery?

Not to mention the veiled threat - "We belong - you decide"

Did they guarantee them? I don't think anyone can guarantee the future. They can say it will help though

namloc1980

StealthRolex wrote: »

Arts.1 and 47 TEU; Declaration 17

Art.6 TEU

Art.9 TEU

Art.15 TEU

Art.311 TFEU

Art.42 TEU

Pointing in the direction of articles is all well and good, what is your issue with them???

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

Arts.1 and 47 TEU; Declaration 17

Art.6 TEU

Art.9 TEU

Art.15 TEU

Art.311 TFEU

Art.42 TEU

I was going to ask you to give me the parts of them you object to and why but I recognise some of those articles as having been explained thousand of times as not meaning what they no campaigns say they do so I don't think there's much point.

K-9

StealthRolex wrote: »

But the guarantees don't deal with the core issues of what is wrong with the Treaty.

If you are in the majority come Saturday, you have a point. If not, you don't.

If you have a problem with that, Referenda is not the system to deal with that.

StealthRolex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Did they guarantee them? I don't think anyone can guarantee the future. They can say it will help though

Oh - I forgot - " Your future starts here "

Whatever about the No campaign at least they picked out elements of the Treaty and if they have misinterpreted them I'm sure you have and will correct them. The Yes campaign outside of this forum is nothing but recycled propaganda.

Instead of putting up posters saying "Article X is good" or "New voting practice Y is Geeerrrraattte" they come out with namby pamby shyte that has nothing to do with the Treaty and more to do with "Consequences"- implied or otherwise.

If the Yes proponents were honest enough to actually explain the nitty gritty of the treaty instead of going off on tangents about failed politicians and "we need Europe proselytizing" I might give them some credit.

The No campaign says - "the Treaty says this - blah blah blah". The Yes campaign, here at least, counters with "No it doesn't you extremist f*ing c*nt" at the worst or might say " No it doesn't mean what you think it means" at the best.

As you said, no-one can guarantee the future and from what I understand of the Treaty in terms of power to the politicans the future with Lisbon is not something I want to say I agreed to.

This is the failed EU Constitution developed by corrupt politicans rehashed into a legal minefield. If you think you understand it so well that you are comfortable with your Yes vote, go for it. It is your right to.

Me, the politicians I used to vote for lost my respect and trust a long time ago and I do not trust anything they say or do.

However every man they say has his price. They seem to be quite comfortable giving the banks 54bn while paying themselves six figure salaries. If they want my vote it will cost them 10mil and they can keep their effing bankers, and Biffo can keep his 300k pension. He can even keep my pension money if he wants. Just give me the 10 mil and the country's yours.

Actually - if they give all of us 10 mil each in return for a yes vote and tell the banks to go and shyte then we can all go and live in a democracy somewhere that has a safe deposit based banking system and leave FF, FG and the Greens to turn the lights off and save the environment before popping over to Brussels to play footsie with their bureaucrat pals. With all us Irish citizens gone he'll have 18 years before he has to worry about the immigrants' kids voting down another referendum. If the concerned business wish to stay they will find plenty of cheap labour and cheap housing available.

F*ck it! We have paid our politicians and bankers enough. It's about time they gave something back if they want us to play ball.

Of course that's not going to happen because the government need f*cking idiots like us to keep paying sufficient taxes to fund the lifestyle they have become accustomed to and they are not going to manage if the entire working population, employers excluded, are on minimum wage. They'd have to take a pay cut or increase corporation tax and we all know that's not going happen . The last pay cut meant they had to start wiping their arses with fivers instead of twenties. Or was that tissue paper instead of silk. It's a while since I've been in the big office but I seem to remember the toilet paper was not anything you could find in a supermarket.

Oh, and the fishermen are right. EU fishing policies have f*cked up the fishing grounds in Irish territorial waters.

Lone Stone

Someone said to me in college today im voting yes... Me and my friend asked why He said i want to piss off the hippies....

If there is nothing wrong with the Lisbon treaty why cant every country hold a vote and since were suppose be the European "union" we should go with the majority vote .

But the other countries dont want to let there people vote on it if it isn't so bad what are they afraid of why not just put it to a vote everywhere, majority rule's.

anyway just my thought on the whole thing.

Dinner

Lone Stone wrote: »

Someone said to me in college today im voting yes... Me and my friend asked why He said i want to piss off the hippies....

If there is nothing wrong with the Lisbon treaty why cant every country hold a vote and since were suppose be the European "union" we should go with the majority vote .

But the other countries dont want to let there people vote on it if it isn't so bad what are they afraid of why not just put it to a vote everywhere, majority rule's.

anyway just my thought on the whole thing.

Because it's not constitutionally required in some countries, and in other countires it is actually illegal.

The Volt

Lone Stone wrote: »

Someone said to me in college today im voting yes... Me and my friend asked why He said i want to piss off the hippies....

If there is nothing wrong with the Lisbon treaty why cant every country hold a vote and since were suppose be the European "union" we should go with the majority vote .

But the other countries dont want to let there people vote on it if it isn't so bad what are they afraid of why not just put it to a vote everywhere, majority rule's.

anyway just my thought on the whole thing.

We shouldn't even be holding a vote. It's a tough, time consuming piece of literature to understand and clearly a lot of people haven't bothered. It gives window of oppertunity to skeptics out for their own motives which they manage to hide from the people that they convince to vote the way they want.

There are good reasons why this kind of election is illegal/not held elsewhere . Democratically electing people to make these informed decisions for us should be how it's done.

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

Whatever about the No campaign at least they picked out elements of the Treaty and if they have misinterpreted them I'm sure you have and will correct them.

They have misrepresented them. They mention article numbers because they are adept at being superficially convincing. None of the article numbers you quoted do what the no campaign says they do

StealthRolex wrote: »

Instead of putting up posters saying "Article X is good" or "New voting practice Y is Geeerrrraattte" they come out with namby pamby shyte that has nothing to do with the Treaty and more to do with "Consequences"- implied or otherwise.

If the Yes proponents were honest enough to actually explain the nitty gritty of the treaty instead of going off on tangents about failed politicians and "we need Europe proselytizing" I might give them some credit.

If you say that the parliament will be more involved in co-decision or that the citizens initiative will give people a stronger voice or that the simplified revision procedure will make limited changes more efficient while maintaining proper controls and respecting constitutional requirements, people fall asleep. This treaty is a boring procedural legalese document that should never have been put to a referendum because the changes it makes are necessary but extremely boring and no one cares about them. But they care about the scary lies and That's why it wasn't put to a referendum in other countries. If we didn't require one it would have been a ten minute slot on the news and we would never have known anything about it because none of the scary predictions are true

StealthRolex wrote: »

Me, the politicians I used to vote for lost my respect and trust a long time ago and I do not trust anything they say or do.

This treaty is not about our politicians. It's not their responsibility to teach you about this treaty, it's your responsibility as a citizen to educate yourself and decide what you think is best for the country and I'm sorry to tell you mate but voting down a beneficial treaty because you've been taken in by the lies of extremists is not best for the country

StealthRolex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I was going to ask you to give me the parts of them you object to and why but I recognise some of those articles as having been explained thousand of times as not meaning what they no campaigns say they do so I don't think there's much point.

Agreed - there is no point as both you and I know the interpretation is not down to us it will be up the the EU judges to decide.

We can surmise what they really mean but we can both be wrong.

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

Agreed - there is no point as both you and I know the interpretation is not down to us it will be up the the EU judges to decide.

We can surmise what they really mean but we can both be wrong.

Just to clear something up: among the governments, among the member state courts, among the EU court and among the campaigns, both yes and no, there is no doubt what these articles mean. Every single one of them knows exactly what they mean but the no campaign wants to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt:

FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence public perception by disseminating negative information designed to undermine the credibility of their beliefs

This is what they are doing and you have fallen for it. That's why they almost always leave parts of the articles out or don't explain their meaning (eg calling corporate tax an indirect tax when it's not). The articles are unequivocally clear in their meaning and anyone who tells you otherwise is either dishonest or deluded

StealthRolex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This treaty is not about our politicians. It's not their responsibility to teach you about this treaty, it's your responsibility as a citizen to educate yourself and decide what you think is best for the country and I'm sorry to tell you mate but voting down a beneficial treaty because you've been taken in by the lies of extremists is not best for the country

I take exception to your classing every no voter and no campaigner and source of information that opposes your point of view as extremist. It is propagandist scaremongering to class those with an opposing view as extremist.

So if you don't mind I will not be taken in by the lies from misguided federalist EU propagandists either.

The Treaty is about politics and the TDs who go off to be MEPs, the leadership of our country and what they and the Commission decide our future is going to be. It is about the ceding of our sovereign powers to a centralized EU. It is about making ECFR legally binding. It is abut making us citizens of the EU legally rather than notionally.
It is about staging the EU as a legal international entity with powers to negotiate trade and foreign policies on the behalf of all EU states and the option to exercise its military as required. If it isn't why then do we need a long term president and high representative? What happens if there is a conflict of interest between NATO, UN and the EU?

From my point of view the Yes media campaign avoids talking about the contents of the treaty. Why? All we get are reactionary comments after the No campaign raises an issue. As I said before I no longer trust our government and never trusted the opposition so why should I take any of the Yes campaign comments as being truthful or honest?

Big business is in business for profit and have a vested interest in a Yes vote. Why should I trust them?

Jobs has nothing to do with the Treaty - only the right to work. After Lisbon the EU may take control of direct foreign investement and send it where it sees fit.
Recovery has nothing to do with the Treaty - the Euro and low ECB interest rates have a lot to do with our current recessionary state along with Irish governmental mismanagement in the absence of EU and ECB oversight.
Belonging to Europe is nothing to do with the Treaty - we have to vote yes to have the facility to leave Europe. It certainly does not make sense for a Eurosceptic to vote No.
Being at the heart of Europe is a lie as our voting strength is reduced after Lisbon. Maybe it streamlines decision making but it also makes it more difficult to oppose decisions that affect us. Can we stop Spanish factory ships sweeping Irish waters?

You think this is a great beneficial treaty? Good for you.

I have come to my conclusions having read from both sides and I am more than comfortable with my decision.

There has to be two sides in a democracy otherwise it is a dictatorship. Accusing those who oppose you of extremism is a step towards dictatorship. Next you will be looking for ways to prevent them having any democratic say and finding ways to pass unintelligible laws without reference to the taxpayer.

QMV

StealthRolex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The articles are unequivocally clear in their meaning and anyone who tells you otherwise is either dishonest or deluded

If Yes campaign are telling me it doesn't mean what I think it unequivocally means does that mean the Yes campaigners are dishonest or deluded?

StealthRolex

Voltwad wrote: »

We shouldn't even be holding a vote. It's a tough, time consuming piece of literature to understand and clearly a lot of people haven't bothered. It gives window of oppertunity to skeptics out for their own motives which they manage to hide from the people that they convince to vote the way they want.

There are good reasons why this kind of election is illegal/not held elsewhere . Democratically electing people to make these informed decisions for us should be how it's done.

There is nothing stopping you from lobbying to get a constitutional amendment to get the Crotty judgement reversed.

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

I take exception to your classing every no voter and no campaigner and source of information that opposes your point of view as extremist. It is propagandist scaremongering to class those with an opposing view as extremist.

No it's not propagandist scaremongering, it's the truth as I have come to realise having not come across a single true reason to vote no

StealthRolex wrote: »

The Treaty is about politics and the TDs who go off to be MEPs, the leadership of our country and what they and the Commission decide our future is going to be.

No it's not.

StealthRolex wrote: »

It is about the ceding of our sovereign powers to a centralized EU.

No it's not, about about sharing power to benefit all

StealthRolex wrote: »

It is about making ECFR legally binding.

OH NOOESSSS :eek: NOT RIGHTS?!?!? Whatever you've been told about the charter is a lie. It's already widely accepted across the EU, it's just not binding. Any niggly little phrase they've picked out to make look bad has been deliberately misinterpreted

StealthRolex wrote: »

It is abut making us citizens of the EU legally rather than notionally.

No it's not

StealthRolex wrote: »

It is about staging the EU as a legal international entity

The EC is already an international entity

StealthRolex wrote: »

with powers to negotiate trade and foreign policies on the behalf of all EU states

No it's not. The only foreign policy the EU has is unanimous foreign policy

StealthRolex wrote: »

and the option to exercise its military as required.

no it's not

StealthRolex wrote: »

If it isn't why then do we need a long term president

It's a president of the council, not an EU president. It's a role that already exists. It's a chairman role like the ceann comhairle and has no power.

StealthRolex wrote: »

and high representative? What happens if there is a conflict of interest between NATO, UN and the EU?

I don't know

StealthRolex wrote: »

From my point of view the Yes media campaign avoids talking about the contents of the treaty. Why?

I've explained why. Because it's a boring international treaty and if they start listing of the things it does people will fall asleep. It's just boring and should never have been put to a referendum

StealthRolex wrote: »

All we get are reactionary comments after the No campaign raises an issue.

you mean tells a lie

StealthRolex wrote: »

As I said before I no longer trust our government and never trusted the opposition so why should I take any of the Yes campaign comments as being truthful or honest?

Because the yes campaign consists of far more than the government. and you don't have to trust anyone, the yes side has the facts, the no side has conspiracy theories.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Big business is in business for profit and have a vested interest in a Yes vote. Why should I trust them?

You should trust them only as far as the claims about economic recovery. Their vested interest is also in our interests in this case.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Jobs has nothing to do with the Treaty - only the right to work. After Lisbon the EU may take control of direct foreign investement and send it where it sees fit.
Recovery has nothing to do with the Treaty - the Euro and low ECB interest rates have a lot to do with our current recessionary state along with Irish governmental mismanagement in the absence of EU and ECB oversight.
Belonging to Europe is nothing to do with the Treaty - we have to vote yes to have the facility to leave Europe. It certainly does not make sense for a Eurosceptic to vote No.

The experts disagree.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Being at the heart of Europe is a lie as our voting strength is reduced after Lisbon.

no the lie is that our voting strenhth is reduced. It actually increases slightly

StealthRolex wrote: »

Maybe it streamlines decision making but it also makes it more difficult to oppose decisions that affect us. Can we stop Spanish factory ships sweeping Irish waters?

A yes to Lisbon is the best chance to stop that precisely because of QMV. We can get it even if the Spanish vote again it.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I have come to my conclusions having read from both sides and I am more than comfortable with my decision.

I'm sorry mate but your entire post is filled with the same old misconceptions. You have been lied to