Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What does a NO vote Mean?

Options
1…45679

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    caseyann wrote: »
    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:

    There's a simple reason for that. Nothing in those guarantees would actually have been affected by the Treaty in the first place. The people against the Lisbon Treaty spreaded lies about the EU forcing abortion on Ireland, the EU would conscript Irish people into an EU army etc etc. None of that is actually contained in the Lisbon Treaty at all, but they were the reasons the majority of people gave for voting No the last time, so the government got the leaders of the 26 other countries to give Ireland these guarantees on these issues just to reassure people that the Lisbon Treaty would not affect these, when in fact it never would have.
    caseyann wrote: »
    And you yourself every clause have read inside out and not more possible surprises hidden?

    I've read a lot of it itself and I have read a lot about it. There are no more suprises IMO. There's not even that much new in the Treaty that isn't in the Treaties we have already agreed to.


  • Options
    #243
    caseyann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,941 ✭✭✭caseyann


    prinz wrote: »
    There's a simple reason for that. Nothing in those guarantees would actually have been affected by the Treaty in the first place. The people against the Lisbon Treaty spreaded lies about the EU forcing abortion on Ireland, the EU would conscript Irish people into an EU army etc etc. None of that is actually contained in the Lisbon Treaty at all, but they were the reasons the majority of people gave for voting No the last time, so the government got the leaders of the 26 other countries to give Ireland these guarantees on these issues just to reassure people that the Lisbon Treaty would not affect these, when in fact it never would have.



    I've read a lot of it itself and I have read a lot about it. There are no more suprises IMO. There's not even that much new in the Treaty that isn't in the Treaties we have already agreed to.


    Ok thanks again :)

    One of the bigger concerns was of forcing the younger generations into army service for a number of years,like other EU members have and with the ability to pass and then for Irish commissioner and government to agree with it under the treaty requirements.


  • Options
    #244
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    caseyann wrote: »
    Ok thanks again :)

    One of the bigger concerns was of forcing the younger generations into army service for a number of years,like other EU members have and with the ability to pass and then for Irish commissioner and government to agree with it under the treaty requirements.


    Don't forget to vote..




    yes :eek::D

    Have a look around those sites and you will see that all the arguments to vote no are based on lies and trying to spread fear.


  • Options
    #245
    caseyann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,941 ✭✭✭caseyann


    prinz wrote: »
    Don't forget to vote..




    yes :eek::D

    Have a look around those sites and you will see that all the arguments to vote no are based on lies and trying to spread fear.
    lmao

    l have to vote yes? i put hundred quid on NO :o

    I will thanks i have been trying to get time but not easy when running a house :p Thanks alot for your help :)


  • Options
    #246
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    caseyann wrote: »
    I was never arguing with you,that would mean i was getting annoyed or frazzled and not once did i :D

    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

    tis there!

    http://i34.tinypic.com/2i0rfo5.png

    :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    caseyann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,941 ✭✭✭caseyann


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    tis there!

    http://i34.tinypic.com/2i0rfo5.png

    :)

    aha :D I cant see it lol :p


  • Options
    #248
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    caseyann wrote: »
    Ok thanks again :)

    One of the bigger concerns was of forcing the younger generations into army service for a number of years,like other EU members have and with the ability to pass and then for Irish commissioner and government to agree with it under the treaty requirements.

    Actually the trend is away from Conscription:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1414033.stm

    That is an old link. Many East European countries have dropped it since and I think Sweden may have too.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #249
    caseyann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,941 ✭✭✭caseyann


    K-9 wrote: »
    Actually the trend is away from Conscription:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1414033.stm

    That is an old link. Many East European countries have dropped it since and I think Sweden may have too.

    Thanks K-9 :) That was one of them things i was worried about coming in with this new treaty.


  • Options
    #250
    adr
    Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭adr


    NO vote means Ireland will remain independent country.
    Irish NO votes express the will of the majority of Europeans (who were not given a chance to vote).
    NO means there are still people who believe in freedom not socialism!

    NO means Irish people are consistent and they expressed their will the first time!


  • Options
    #251
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    adr wrote: »
    NO means there are still people who believe in freedom not socialism!

    Is that you Joe?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭Dinner


    adr wrote: »
    NO vote means Ireland will remain independent country.

    Thats funny, a yes vote also means that.
    adr wrote: »
    Irish NO votes express the will of the majority of Europeans (who were not given a chance to vote).

    The majority of Europeans don't live in a country where a referendum is mandatory, they live in a country where it is either optional but never/rarely done or illegal according to their respective Consititutions.
    adr wrote: »
    NO means there are still people who believe in freedom not socialism!

    It's interesting that both the far right and far left groups across Europe are against the treaty. The goes someway to show that it's quite balanced.
    adr wrote: »
    NO means Irish people are consistent and they expressed their will the first time!

    A Yes means Irish people are willing to change their minds once their concerns have been met. Which is a very important part of democracy. Unless you'd rather live in a world where no one changed their minds regardless of whether their issues have been solved.


  • Options
    #253
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    adr wrote: »
    NO vote means Ireland will remain independent country.

    :confused: There'd be no change to our status either way.
    adr wrote: »
    Irish NO votes express the will of the majority of Europeans (who were not given a chance to vote).

    If they weren't given a chance to vote how do you know what the will of the majority is? :confused:. Most member states have ratified the Treaty according to their own democratic process.
    adr wrote: »
    NO means there are still people who believe in freedom not socialism!

    If the Lisbon Treaty was bringing in socialism why would Joe Higgins be campaigning against it?
    adr wrote: »
    NO means Irish people are consistent and they expressed their will the first time!

    So we should go back to when there was no divorce too? :confused:


  • Options
    #254
    adr
    Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭adr


    Lisbon Treaty formally creates a federation called European Union. Right now it operates based on a number of different agreements but each country is independent. Once Lisbon is passed Europe will become like USA or rather Soviet Union where decisions of Brussels will have the highest power.
    Do you really believe that other member states will tolerate Irish gtees? Do you really believe countries like Germany or France will not vote against special treatment of Ireland? Who will have majority in the European Parliament, Ireland or the rest of Europe? It is as simple as that to overturn the Irish gtees.
    People who "secured" the guarantees don't really care about them. They were in favour of the Treaty before them during the first referendum. They needed sth to propose the referendum for the second time.


    Fortunately to Eurocrats didn't have to ask people in other countries what they think. When people got a chance to speak in polls in France or the Netherlands they rejected the Treaty.


    Joe Higgins like every socialist is an idiot who doesn't understand simple things. He probably doesn't even know why he is voting NO. But this time the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I'll let him vote NO.
    European Union is introducing more and more socialist policies and regulations under the banner of capitalism and freedom. What farmers subsidies have to do with capitalism? What banks regulations and then (when these regulations failed) bail outs have to do with free market?

    And how on earth Lisbon Treaty will create more jobs and help recovery? Europe is getting into deeper sh..t because of the rule of bureaucracy. Do you really think more regulation and centralisation is going to help?
    In Soviet Union everything was controlled and regulated. Did it work? NO!!!


  • Options
    #255
    Rb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,277 ✭✭✭✭Rb


    Oh dear.


  • Options
    #256
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,292 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    adr wrote: »
    Lisbon Treaty formally creates a federation called European Union. Right now it operates based on a number of different agreements but each country is independent. Once Lisbon is passed Europe will become like USA or rather Soviet Union where decisions of Brussels will have the highest power.
    Do you really believe that other member states will tolerate Irish gtees? Do you really believe countries like Germany or France will not vote against special treatment of Ireland? Who will have majority in the European Parliament, Ireland or the rest of Europe? It is as simple as that to overturn the Irish gtees.
    People who "secured" the guarantees don't really care about them. They were in favour of the Treaty before them during the first referendum. They needed sth to propose the referendum for the second time.


    Fortunately to Eurocrats didn't have to ask people in other countries what they think. When people got a chance to speak in polls in France or the Netherlands they rejected the Treaty.


    Joe Higgins like every socialist is an idiot who doesn't understand simple things. He probably doesn't even know why he is voting NO. But this time the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I'll let him vote NO.
    European Union is introducing more and more socialist policies and regulations under the banner of capitalism and freedom. What farmers subsidies have to do with capitalism? What banks regulations and then (when these regulations failed) bail outs have to do with free market?

    And how on earth Lisbon Treaty will create more jobs and help recovery? Europe is getting into deeper sh..t because of the rule of bureaucracy. Do you really think more regulation and centralisation is going to help?
    In Soviet Union everything was controlled and regulated. Did it work? NO!!!

    EU = USSR ??......all I can say is WOW!


  • Options
    #257
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    EU = USSR ??......all I can say is WOW!

    someones should send him a history book or send him to eastern european states that joined for a chat with the locals over 30


  • Options
    #258
    Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭Dinner


    adr wrote: »
    Lisbon Treaty formally creates a federation called European Union. Right now it operates based on a number of different agreements but each country is independent. Once Lisbon is passed Europe will become like USA or rather Soviet Union where decisions of Brussels will have the highest power.

    I'm guessing that you'r referring to the 'legal identity' that Lisbon gives the EU?

    Declan Ganley, among others, is very fond of saying that this is somehow new. It's not. The EU already has a legal identity through the EC. Lisbon just shifts it a bit. It does nothing like 'create a federation'. And another thing that usually goes with this lie is it makes us all 'citizens of Europe' first and our country second. It doesn't.
    adr wrote: »
    Do you really believe that other member states will tolerate Irish gtees? Do you really believe countries like Germany or France will not vote against special treatment of Ireland? Who will have majority in the European Parliament, Ireland or the rest of Europe? It is as simple as that to overturn the Irish gtees.

    It's not that simple to overturn the guarantees. If Ireland ratifies Lisbon the guarantees will immediatly be lodged with the UN, where they become a legally binding international agreement in their own right (like a mini-treaty). They will have the same weight as the Seville Agreements, Edinburgh Agreements, the Good Friday Agreement and the Anglo Irish agreements. Any examples of where any of these agreements have been overturned 'as simple as that'?

    As an extra measure the guarantees will be added to the next treaty (probably an accession treaty for Croatia) in a few years.
    adr wrote: »
    People who "secured" the guarantees don't really care about them. They were in favour of the Treaty before them during the first referendum. They needed sth to propose the referendum for the second time.

    The people who secured the guarantees do care about them. If for no other reason than to get the Irish people to accept Lisbon their concerns must be addressed. So for that very reason they must care about them.
    adr wrote: »
    Fortunately to Eurocrats didn't have to ask people in other countries what they think. When people got a chance to speak in polls in France or the Netherlands they rejected the Treaty.

    The Eurocrats didn't have to ask in other countries because they are not legally required to do so. Italy is (by it's own Constitution) forbidden from having a referendum on an international treaty. We wouldn't like it if they started demanding that we change our constitution to make referenda illegal, so why should be demand that they change theirs?

    France and Holland rejected the EU Constitution. Some statistical surveys were carried out to find out why. The results of those were acted upon. For example any hint at statehood was removed such as the flag anthem and motto. Some free market language was removed by the French and the Dutch added an 'Orange card system'. The rest of the constitution, including those changes became Lisbon.

    They EU found out and acted upon their concerns so it's reasonable to assume that their concerns have been satisified and no point in going through the massive expense of a referendum.


  • Options
    #259
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,292 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    adr wrote: »
    When people got a chance to speak in polls in France or the Netherlands they rejected the Treaty.

    They rejected the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. Voters in Spain and Luxembourg approved that Treaty! In fact of the voters in the 4 countries that voted on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe 27m were in favour, 23m were aginst.


  • Options
    #260
    adr
    Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭adr


    Dinner wrote: »
    I'm guessing that you'r referring to the 'legal identity' that Lisbon gives the EU?

    They EU found out and acted upon their concerns so it's reasonable to assume that their concerns have been satisified and no point in going through the massive expense of a referendum.

    Yep. EU was always concerned about saving money. I'm sure they wouldn't spend too much on sth silly like referendum.
    In general I would say EU is an example of frugality


    If the Article 1 says:

    "By this Treaty, the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES establish among themselves a EUROPEAN UNION, hereinafter called "the Union" on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common."

    it is pretty clear to me that it wasn't established before. And for example what happens if Ireland has a different objective re taxes. And what happens if Germany have different objective re taxes. I guess Irish will have their gtees and can do what they want but Germans will have to abide by the will of EU. I would like to see that...


    @ei.sdraob
    I'm eastern european over 30. I know how socialism looks like and I really don't want to see it again in my life. I find it hard to believe that it happens again so quickly.


  • Options
    #261
    Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭Dinner


    adr wrote: »
    it is pretty clear to me that it wasn't established before. And for example what happens if Ireland has a different objective re taxes. And what happens if Germany have different objective re taxes. I guess Irish will have their gtees and can do what they want but Germans will have to abide by the will of EU. I would like to see that...

    And as I stated it already has a legal identity through the EC.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    adr
    Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭adr


    Dinner wrote: »
    And as I stated it already has a legal identity through the EC.

    It doesn't have legal identity through EC. Which part of the word establish you don't understand?
    EC is based on a number of different treaties and agreements but it doesn't have a legal identity as a whole. EC is not a country. EU establishes the Union where each country becomes part of it losing its independence.


  • Options
    #263
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,292 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    adr wrote: »
    If the Article 1 says:

    "By this Treaty, the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES establish among themselves a EUROPEAN UNION, hereinafter called "the Union" on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common."

    it is pretty clear to me that it wasn't established before.

    Oh dear, we haven't done our research have we adr???
    Maastricht Treaty 1992 wrote:
    TITLE I
    COMMON PROVISIONS
    ARTICLE A
    By this Treaty, the High Contracting Parties establish among themselves a European Union, hereinafter called ‘the Union’.

    http://www.eurotreaties.com/maastrichteu.pdf

    EU was established under Maastricht 17 years ago!


  • Options
    #264
    adr
    Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭adr


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Oh dear, we haven't done our research have we adr???



    http://www.eurotreaties.com/maastrichteu.pdf

    EU was established under Maastricht 17 years ago!


    And what about the second part of the sentence?

    "... on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common."

    was that in Masstricht Treaty 17 years ago?!!


  • Options
    #265
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,292 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    adr wrote: »
    And what about the second part of the sentence?

    "... on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common."

    was that in Masstricht Treaty 17 years ago?!!

    That is exactly what the EU is now. It deals with areas that the member states have deemed it should do!! That sentence clarifies exactly what the EU is.
    Article 5
    The Community shall act within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by this Treaty and of the objectives assigned to it therein.

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/12002E/pdf/12002E_EN.pdf


  • Options
    #266
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    Dinner wrote: »
    It's not that simple to overturn the guarantees. If Ireland ratifies Lisbon the guarantees will immediatly be lodged with the UN, where they become a legally binding international agreement in their own right (like a mini-treaty). They will have the same weight as the Seville Agreements, Edinburgh Agreements, the Good Friday Agreement and the Anglo Irish agreements. Any examples of where any of these agreements have been overturned 'as simple as that'?
    Don't forget to mention that they've not been signed by heads of state.
    Dinner wrote: »
    As an extra measure the guarantees will be added to the next treaty (probably an accession treaty for Croatia) in a few years.

    Sure why bother? They're legally binding... right?


  • Options
    #267
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,292 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    free-man wrote: »
    Don't forget to mention that they've not been signed by heads of state.

    Are you still banging on about that? Decisions are legally binding instruments of the EU. They can't just forget about them or make them go away. They are in exactly the same format as the Danish Maastricht guarantees in 1992 which amongst other things guaranteed Denmark an opt out of joining the ERM/Euro....last time I checked the Danes haven't been forced to take on the Euro.


  • Options
    #268
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Are you still banging on about that?

    Just pointing out the facts. They haven't been signed by heads of state.

    If this is not the case, link to a source that says they have been signed and consider it dropped.


  • Options
    #269
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,292 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    free-man wrote: »
    Just pointing out the facts. They haven't been signed by heads of state.

    If this is not the case, link to a source that says they have been signed and consider it dropped.

    I didn't say it wasn't the case and neither of us knows whether they signed them or not. But they are legally binding in the same way the Danish guarantees are legally binding. Do you challenge the validity of the Danish guarantees?


  • Options
    #270
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    I didn't say it wasn't the case and neither of us knows whether they signed them or not. But they are legally binding in the same way the Danish guarantees are legally binding. Do you challenge the validity of the Danish guarantees?

    Ok great so you can't establish if they've been signed or not.

    Considering the burden of proof is on the yes side as they are re-running the treaty I'll say no more on this aspect right now.

    I don't challenge the Danish guarantees, but then again, neither did anyone else. We've no idea what would happen if the declarations were challenged as it's never happened before.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,292 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    free-man wrote: »
    Ok great so you can't establish if they've been signed or not.

    Considering the burden of proof is on the yes side as they are re-running the treaty I'll say no more on this aspect right now.

    I don't challenge the Danish guarantees, but then again, neither did anyone else. We've no idea what would happen if the declarations were challenged as it's never happened before.

    Fair enough. I think they are binding based on their wording and the wording in the Treaty itself......which simply can't be ignored. You believe otherwise. Agree to disagree (strongly :p)


Advertisement