What does a NO vote Mean?

Neamhshuntasach

I'm posting the below here to direct a friend to read replies because i am tired explaining things to him and listening to him telling me i am wrong. The below is why a particular group are voting no and everything he says is just the party line. Does anybody have the time to share their opinions on the below. It doesn't matter if you cut and paste one of your previous replies as i'm sure there are many people who have addressed the below dozens of times.


* It is the same treaty put to Irish voters people and rejected in June 2008 and no different to the Constitution rejected in 2005 by electorates in France and the Netherlands
* It denies the people of the occupied six counties the right to vote on the future of Ireland
* It enshrines the principle of the free market and competition
* It places the interests of big business before workers’ rights
* It promotes the further privatisation of public services, particularly in the areas of health and education
* It further erodes neutrality – reaffirming commitments to common defence and security which will be consistent with commitments to NATO and obliging member states to progressively improve their military capabilities
* It increases the voting strength of larger states such as Germany, France and Britain, while simultaneously halving the voting strength of smaller states like Ireland
* It creates an office of President and Foreign Minister – giving the EU power to determine foreign policy for all member states

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

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?

The difference is that when I explain an article I back up everything I say with facts and evidence. You don't have to trust me but you have to respect the proof I provide. The no side avoids facts and evidence at all costs

StealthRolex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The difference is that when I explain an article I back up everything I say with facts and evidence. You don't have to trust me but you have to respect the proof I provide. The no side avoids facts and evidence at all costs

Ok, you've convinced me. It's all good - I just hope it's not too good to be true.

Noreen1

prinz wrote: »

You mean a select few who are also heavily involved in the No to Lisbon campaign already, via connections with various groups such as PANA?

Personally I give more credence to the vast majority of independent and campaign neutral legal specialists.

Are you suggesting that these solicitors were individually asked whether they intended to vote "No" before they were employed?
Or that they "invented" legal concerns?

Has it occurred to you that those of them who may intend to vote "No" are doing so because of their concerns about the legality of the Guarantees?

Incidentally, before someone jumps to the conclusion that I have any connection with the UKIP, PANA or any other political organisation - I don't.
I am a completely independent floating voter, Irish born, and raised.

If you think there are no grounds for legal concern, here's a thought:

What is the definition of "Family" in the attached charter of rights?

Since the law is based on precise definitions, it is not difficult to see how the (Deliberate?) ambiguity can be used (or abused, depending on your viewpoint) by special interest groups to further their own agenda.

Unfortunately, time constraints forbid any further participation in this discussion.
I feel it is unfortunate that what could have been an interesting dialogue, has, in large areas, descended to another slanging match, full of accusations, counter accusations and innuendo, rather than a reasoned, intelligent discussion.
Unfortunate, but predictable. Perhaps Democracy is already dead??

Noreen

Sam Vimes

Noreen1 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that these solicitors were individually asked whether they intended to vote "No" before they were employed?
Or that they "invented" legal concerns?

Has it occurred to you that those of them who may intend to vote "No" are doing so because of their concerns about the legality of the Guarantees?

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62343658&postcount=47

Your concerns are 100% unfounded. You have been lied to but not by the people you think

caseyann

Rb wrote: »

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.

My opinions are not worth anything because i supplied you with stuff from a site to explain in lamens terms whats its all about,so other people can see it narrowed down :rolleyes:
Yeah bring out the truth from reliable sources and it makes me embarrassed argue all of what is said there down.You wouldn't be able
I am not a solicitor and the treaty in flipping doctor talk would be like you going in and doing heart surgery. :rolleyes:

MrMatisse

No means yes.

we just needed a second chance to put the x in the right box.

Dinner

Really-Stressed wrote: »

No means yes.

we just needed a second chance to put the x in the right box.

And have our concerns addressed.

prinz

Noreen1 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that these solicitors were individually asked whether they intended to vote "No" before they were employed? Or that they "invented" legal concerns?

No they didn't need to be asked. They were already active in the no campaign.

Noreen1 wrote: »

Has it occurred to you that those of them who may intend to vote "No" are doing so because of their concerns about the legality of the Guarantees?

They all intend to vote no, see above. However other law lecturers, and EU law specialists - who have not affiliated themselves to yes or no, have confirmed the legality of the guarantees - now who do I trust.

Noreen1 wrote: »

Unfortunately, time constraints forbid any further participation in this discussion.
Noreen

Funny, every time I hear that it's always been from someone on the no side :rolleyes:.

prinz

caseyann wrote: »

My opinions are not worth anything because i supplied you with stuff from a site to explain in lamens terms whats its all about,so other people can see it narrowed down..

Are you trying to say that you wouldn't be able to give your own opinions in lay-man terms? :rolleyes:....

caseyann

prinz wrote: »

Are you trying to say that you wouldn't be able to give your own opinions in lay-man terms? :rolleyes:....

Lmao i never wrote that word before never seen it pardon me

How wonderful of you to point out and roll eyes at me

Why would i do that and spend ages writing it out when i could just copy what i agree with.All i have had thrown at me since i asked why should i vote yes,was copies and pastes and read the Lisbon treaty from all the yes voters Only two people actually bothered or perhaps new how to spell it out in (Lamens) terms. And i like it spelt like that so keeping it that way lol

StealthRolex

Really-Stressed wrote: »

No means yes.

we just needed a second chance to put the x in the right box.

Put an X in both boxes... to be sure, to be sure

prinz

caseyann wrote: »

Lmao i never wrote that word before never seen it pardon me

How wonderful of you to point out and roll eyes at me

It wasn't your spelling I was rolling eyes at... you confirm you're not a solicitor so surely you could make a stab at explaining some things in lamen terms?

There's a simple reason people have been copying and pasting, because the truth is there in black and white, it's not that difficult. It's when people come along and attempt to explain it in lay-men terms most often that they start spreading lies, misquoting and using arguments about things that aren't in the Treaty at all and that's why they are unable to copy and paste any section of the Treaty to support their lies.

StealthRolex

prinz wrote: »

Funny, every time I hear that it's always been from someone on the no side :rolleyes:.

:pac: Probably because Yes posters don't have real jobs? :rolleyes:

prinz

StealthRolex wrote: »

:pac: Probably because Yes posters don't have real jobs? :rolleyes:

Possibly. Or it could be that they are willing to actually back up, explain and expand on their arguments, rather than posting some nonsense and then claiming they have to go...

caseyann

prinz wrote: »

It wasn't your spelling I was rolling eyes at... you confirm you're not a solicitor so surely you could make a stab at explaining some things in lamen terms?

There's a simple reason people have been copying and pasting, because the truth is there in black and white, it's not that difficult. It's when people come along and attempt to explain it in lay-men terms most often that they start spreading lies, misquoting and using arguments about things that aren't in the Treaty at all and that's why they are unable to copy and paste any section of the Treaty to support their lies.

Yeah but if they are asked ok what about this pull out a draft from Lisbon treaty in reflection of this.

I had a woman tell me today that she could not even read the first sentence in the booklet sent out,and had to grab for the dictionary.That is not good that alot of Irish people do not even know what they are voting for.
I so could when i get going but seriously i have house with children running in and out and haven't got the time.

prinz

caseyann wrote: »

I so could when i get going but seriously i have house with children running in and out and haven't got the time.

Here-

http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/

(The Ref Com is completely neutral - and the site includes short videos that you can listen to explaining any changes in the Treaty simply and quickly)

http://www.lisbontreaty.ie/

jacool

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Confidence fuels recovery and uncertainty fuels recessions

Sam - a YES vote means the economy recovers?
I admire your simplicity but don't see it myself.
However, I can see it as a way to convince simpletons.

In this vein, the www.irelandforeurope.ie people say "A second consecutive rejection of the available Europe is a message to the wider world that we are uncertain about where we stand." whereas I would see a second vote as showing a certainty, as we would be being consistent. NO then YES shows us to be "uncertain where we stand". Its a 180 degree turnabout.

Sam Vimes

jacool wrote: »

Sam - a YES vote means the economy recovers?
I admire your simplicity but don't see it myself.
However, I can see it as a way to convince simpletons.

Yes if you take an overly simplistic straw man version of my statement yes it can indeed appear like a simplistic statement to convince simpletons. I said confidence fuels recovery, not that a yes vote to Lisbon means the economy recovers. It will be a contributing factor, not the sole answer to all our woes.

Btw, you should tell 91% of economists, 90% of businesses and the majority of trade unions that they're all simpletons

jacool

Btw, you should tell 91% of economists, 90% of businesses and the majority of trade unions that they're all simpletons.

I know a lot of economists and a lot of trade unionists and they strike me as simpletons, but that's not what I said, but I think that you are being naive if you think that the YES vote will contribute to the economy recovering. Of all the reasons to vote YES, that is not the cleverest one, just sounds like a FF (not you now, just FF) reason for getting the vote passed because they looked stupid last time round.
I will concede that you know bucket loads more about this than I do so I'm not knocking any of your other arguments.
I voted NO last time, but I think that was my last play with "democracy". I think the AYEs have it this time, and in 10 years time we'll find out what it really entails.

ei.sdraob

jacool wrote: »

that was my last play with "democracy". I think the AYEs have it this time, and in 10 years time we'll find out what it really entails.

dont worry the NO lies it wont amount to much

been there done that

/

caseyann

prinz wrote: »

Here-

http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/

(The Ref Com is completely neutral - and the site includes short videos that you can listen to explaining any changes in the Treaty simply and quickly)

http://www.lisbontreaty.ie/

Thanks for that

• Ireland, and all other Member States, will keep a Commissioner
• Ireland will remain in control of its own tax rates
• Irish neutrality will not be affected – no conscription, no defence alliances
• Ireland retains control of sensitive ethical issues such as abortion
• Workers’ rights and public services are valued and protected in Ireland and across the EU

So all of these are set guarantees and can not be over thrown by the 27? Or changed in future?

prinz

caseyann wrote: »

So all of these are set guarantees and can not be over thrown by the 27? Or changed in future?

Yes they are legal guarantees. If there is any attempt to break these guarantees and Ireland could just walk away and ignore it. Any change can not be forced on us. These guarantees have been sent to the UN, so that if there is any attempt to break them, the Irish government can by-pass the EU and go straight to the UN to have them enforced. They are absolutely 100% legally binding.

Sam Vimes

jacool wrote: »

Btw, you should tell 91% of economists, 90% of businesses and the majority of trade unions that they're all simpletons.

I know a lot of economists and a lot of trade unionists and they strike me as simpletons, but that's not what I said, but I think that you are being naive if you think that the YES vote will contribute to the economy recovering.

I'm not being naive, I'm taking the word of the people who know most about the economy over a few people on the no side who want to ignore the experts because it damages their case.

jacool wrote: »

Of all the reasons to vote YES, that is not the cleverest one,

No it's not, there are far better reasons to vote yes but nor is it an outright lie as it is often called.

jacool wrote: »

just sounds like a FF (not you now, just FF) reason for getting the vote passed because they looked stupid last time round.

And ya know why I think they're doing it, scaremongering won last time. It didn't matter that none of it was true, people were scared into voting no so I think they decided that fear was probably the best way to get a yes vote this time and they're probably right

jacool wrote: »

I will concede that you know bucket loads more about this than I do so I'm not knocking any of your other arguments.
I voted NO last time, but I think that was my last play with "democracy". I think the AYEs have it this time, and in 10 years time we'll find out what it really entails.

We shall see. I really hope it goes through so I can stand smugly looking at all the harbingers of doom and say "well, what was all the fuss about?"

caseyann

prinz wrote: »

Yes they are legal guarantees. If there is any attempt to break these guarantees and Ireland could just walk away and ignore it. Any change can not be forced on us. These guarantees have been sent to the UN, so that if there is any attempt to break them, the Irish government can by-pass the EU and go straight to the UN to have them enforced. They are absolutely 100% legally binding.

Thanks again:)

One more question if you don't mind,The Irish government can not hand us them and then go ahead changing it back without consent of a vote from irish people?

ei.sdraob

caseyann wrote: »

Thanks for that

• Ireland, and all other Member States, will keep a Commissioner
• Ireland will remain in control of its own tax rates
• Irish neutrality will not be affected – no conscription, no defence alliances
• Ireland retains control of sensitive ethical issues such as abortion
• Workers’ rights and public services are valued and protected in Ireland and across the EU

So all of these are set guarantees and can not be over thrown by the 27? Or changed in future?

after all our arguing you never checked out my signature

moondogspot

A No vote means we remain under the Nice Treaty. Simple as.

prinz

caseyann wrote: »

Thanks again:)

One more question if you don't mind,The Irish government can not hand us them and then go ahead changing it back without consent of a vote from irish people?

No they can't do that, absolutely not.

caseyann

ei.sdraob wrote: »

after all our arguing you never checked out my signature

I was never arguing with you,that would mean i was getting annoyed or frazzled and not once did i

i don't look at peoples signatures but would have been hell alot easier if you showed me that in first place lmao:D p.s you havent got one lol

caseyann

prinz wrote: »

No they can't do that, absolutely not.

Whats worrying now is the fact the government would have let its country sign up to that first time around if they hadn't been caught out :eek:
And you yourself every clause have read inside out and not more possible surprises hidden?