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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
No renegotiation - no means no!
Comments
-
The UK, French, Dutch and Austrian governments couldn't give a flying fig about democracy. I read that 80% of Austrians WANTED a referendum on the treaty but they have been denied their democratic voice.
The British, the French, the Dutch and the Austrians elected their governments. That is how representative democracy works..Another attempt at coercion. If the EU respects each country's decision on ratifying treaties or not, why would we be a victim after a No decision on this one?
This is not a threat, this is the reality of our situation. If we vote no we're shooting ourselves in the foot. Nobody is going to "do" anything to us, we would simply be deciding something that is against our interests.These, and there are countless more comments, are reasons that people need to be very wary of voting Yes just because it is the requested thing to do, by our own government and the EU governments.
I suppose voters shouldn't be wary of voting no when requested to do so by the Shinners and a collection of other nutjobs. At least the government enjoys the legitimacy of having been elected :rolleyes:0 -
Seven, and ten, respectively, according to the pro-referendum demonstrations organised over our bank holiday weekend:
Holland: http://erc2.org/typo3temp/pics/aba6fa56f4.jpg
France: http://erc2.org/typo3temp/pics/b76e43db4a.jpg
LoL ... i often go into Murphys law for the Jazz on monday nights .. its bloody sad our Embassy in Den Haag is next to a pub
protest was far bigger in Amsterdam though.0 -
-
Speaking as a ‘yes’ supporter, there seems to me to be a growing expectation that if we vote 'no', we'll get another bite at the cherry. I think this time around, 'no' should be taken to mean 'no' - end of story. A renegotiation will mean our diplomats and leaders asking for something that is either unreasonable or else something that's already there.
One way or another, we are going to have this treaty or the key contents of it (possibly after it has been dressed up as another entity if it is rejected), pushed upon us. I'm voting no, because I genuinely believe that a no vote will not be tolerated by the EU political class. This is as fundamental a point as I have ever had to vote on, and I'm angry and disturbed that not just our government but also other external government minsiters have put me in a position where I have to put this issue, ahead of what is actually in the treaty itself. Before looking at what you are voting for or against in terms of content, I strongly believe that you have to have a look at how free you actually are to commit to one particular side of the referendum. I can't remember a time previously in our history when we have been told by not just our government but also our opposition, that we simply cannot vote one particular way on any issue. I'm literally alarmed and nothing less than absolutely astounded that I'm reading threads here by posters that appear to be completely unaffected by the fact that no matter what way we vote, the only answer that will be accepted from us is Yes.
How can you walk into a polling station and put any value whatsoever on your right to participate in a ballot, in the full knowledge that if you vote yes your decision will be respected and if you vote no, it will be like as if you just didn't bother to turn up to vote at all??? In effect, by holding a second referendum after an unacceptable decision, what the government is doing is reaching into the ballot box on the second occasion and taking our your ballot paper, if you happen to disagree with them. You wouldn't see the likes of it in Zimbabwe or in South Africa under apartheid. I need to ask how people on the yes side of the debate are able to walk into a polling station and partake in a referendum, knowing that only those who tick on particular box will be considered. I just can't get my head around this, sorry...0 -
One of the most common reasons I have heard for voting 'No' (particularly on this forum) and it still makes no sense to me. What do you mean "a no vote will not be tolerated"? That sounds to me like scaremongering, if ever I've heard it.I'm voting no, because I genuinely believe that a no vote will not be tolerated by the EU political class.
I have absolutely no idea where you've gotten this idea from, but it's complete and utter nonsense. Can you please do the whole EU a favour and base your vote on the actual content of the treaty?How can you walk into a polling station and put any value whatsoever on your right to participate in a ballot, in the full knowledge that if you vote yes your decision will be respected and if you vote no, it will be like as if you just didn't bother to turn up to vote at all???0 -
Advertisement
-
(1) The British, the French, the Dutch and the Austrians elected their governments. That is how representative democracy works..
(2) This is not a threat, this is the reality of our situation. If we vote no we're shooting ourselves in the foot. Nobody is going to "do" anything to us, we would simply be deciding something that is against our interests.
(3) I suppose voters shouldn't be wary of voting no when requested to do so by the Shinners and a collection of other nutjobs. At least the government enjoys the legitimacy of having been elected :rolleyes:
(1) Or how representative democracy doesnt work! The French government are on record that they wouldnt trust the French people with another referendum and the Dutch have said so implicitly when asked in parliament. Representative democracy does have inefficiencies, major ones really when you think about it. And we can see it in action here. 96% of TD's who are pusing for Yes are only representing approx 55% (last poll) of Yes voters. So much for representative democracy being representative. It isnt. Wake up and smell the coffee.
(2) This is a threat, and it should not be the reality. Its a bit like saying that, well in theory, we teh EU respect the vote of the Irish people who make the decision in Ireland (not the Dail/Senate), but in practice we the EU will say 'vavancoulou' (sp?) to Ireland. If we vote No, we are not shooting Ireland in the foot, or other EU countries and how is voting No against our interests when people that are voting No see it as protecting their interests?
(3) There are many people advocating No that are representatives. I agree that many have distaste for Sinn Fein who always vote No on EU issues seemingly, but equally there are many that dont like many on the Yes side. Whats important for us all is to decide not based on personalties, allegiances/tribes, but on what's in the treaty itself. Ironically, the Green Party TD's were against the Nice Treaty and now are for the Lisbon Treaty. Go figure that one out. They say that politics is the art of the possible but it also seems to be the art of the spineless or the art of 'anything to stay in power'.
Overall, I think the main Yes side parties, FF and FG, have mismanaged this campaign very badly, perhaps another sign of how poor so-called representative democracy is working. Garret Fitzgerald agreed with that last night on Vincent Brown (although his hint was only in the direction of FF). They should have laid out the Treaty before us, spoke about the pro's and the con's, and they should have given every TD a free right to state what they like and vote which way they like. It should have been open. There should have been no use of the party whip, etc. In other words they should have acted more like the referendum commision.
Vote wisely .... and tomorrow! ;-)
Redspider0 -
That doesn't mean they're right. They may think they are protecting their interests, but that doesn't mean that they are....how is voting No against our interests when people that are voting No see it as protecting their interests?
Not that many.There are many people advocating No that are representatives.
Agree 100%.Whats important for us all is to decide not based on personalties, allegiances/tribes, but on what's in the treaty itself.
Not entirely true - the Green Party does not have an official stance with regard to the treaty.Ironically, the Green Party TD's were against the Nice Treaty and now are for the Lisbon Treaty.
That's a bit unfair, don't you think? Using your logic, I could argue that everyone voting 'No' is a Shinner. While true in some cases (perhaps a lot of cases), it is certainly not true of everyone.Go figure that one out. They say that politics is the art of the possible but it also seems to be the art of the spineless or the art of 'anything to stay in power'.
But that is essentially the purpose of the Referendum Commission, pro's and con's aside; it's up to the electorate to decide the pro's and con's for themselves.They should have laid out the Treaty before us, spoke about the pro's and the con's...0 -
One way or another, we are going to have this treaty or the key contents of it (possibly after it has been dressed up as another entity if it is rejected), pushed upon us. I'm voting no, because I genuinely believe that a no vote will not be tolerated by the EU political class.
...
How can you walk into a polling station and put any value whatsoever on your right to participate in a ballot, in the full knowledge that if you vote yes your decision will be respected and if you vote no, it will be like as if you just didn't bother to turn up to vote at all???
Nobody is threatening to take away the right to vote NO. We can vote NO as many times as we like, until they stop asking. The other member states cannot force us to accept a deal.
Likewise, we cannot force them to re-negotiate and accept a new deal. If we vote NO and the others refuse to re-negotiate, they are entirely within their rights and so are we.
There is no sinister EU political class trying to force people to do something. There are just 27 countries trying to reach an agreement.0 -
One of the most common reasons I have heard for voting 'No' (particularly on this forum) and it still makes no sense to me. What do you mean "a no vote will not be tolerated"? That sounds to me like scaremongering, if ever I've heard it.
I have absolutely no idea where you've gotten this idea from, but it's complete and utter nonsense. Can you please do the whole EU a favour and base your vote on the actual content of the treaty?
What do you think I mean??? I mean a NO vote will not be tolerated by this government or the EU. In support of this, I cite the last time this happened, which we all know happened in the Nice Treaty. You are obviously living in some completely parrellel universe if you cannot see this, it is a matter of historical fact. We rejected Nice, we were told to vote again-FACT. It might not suit you that this happened, but the fact is that it did, and I'm not doing anything strange by taking this into account on this occasion. You must be free to vote either way when voting and I genuinely believe that any voter ought to evaluate how a democratically reached decision will be accepted, whatever that decision could be, before voting. I don't want to be part of an EU that cannot accept a democratic decision given by a country. Before all else, I have decided that I don't want that and I'm going to be voting against any EU expansion plans and voting against any EU treaty's for as long as I'm looking at an EU that cannot accept democratic voting decisions. The matter of what is in the treaty is not important to me, there is a problem in the EU with regard to the acceptance of the democratic wishes of electorates and this must be dealt with in the first instance in my opinion and if I cannot say that the EU will accept the decision of this country, whatever that may be, I have to vote against the EU no matter what they are putting before me in an attempt to preserve our right to have the final say, it's as simple as that, the book must stop with us, we have to be the final arbitrators, not the EU, that is the way democracy works.0 -
VoidStarNull wrote: »Nobody is threatening to take away the right to vote NO. We can vote NO as many times as we like, until they stop asking. The other member states cannot force us to accept a deal.
Likewise, we cannot force them to re-negotiate and accept a new deal. If we vote NO and the others refuse to re-negotiate, they are entirely within their rights and so are we.
There is no sinister EU political class trying to force people to do something. There are just 27 countries trying to reach an agreement.
That is the topic of this thread, that instead of them continually putting us to a vote until we capitulate to what they want, that NO MEANS NO! In my opinion, there is a political class pushing this whole agenda, they oppose referendums and the veto of the people and are simply asking us to rubberstamp whatever whims they dream up. What literally scares me is that people cannot see this. I'm not some frustrated leftie or shinner, but I'm alarmed at this.0 -
Advertisement
-
But wait, hang on. The same treaty was presented twice, no difference whatsoever. If people were really that against it, wouldn't they have voted "No" the second time?I don't want to be part of an EU that cannot accept a democratic decision given by a country.
What Nice was, was a perfect experiment in spin. The exact same treaty was presented twice, but with different propaganda engines each time. The second time, the result changed. What does that say to you?
Also be aware that the first decision on Nice wasn't ignored. Ignoring it would have meant that the Government went ahead and altered the constitution anyway. They didn't. They accepted that people voted "No", and made no changes to the constitution. Then they realised that they had simply failed to make an effort to convince people of the benefits, so provided them with more information, allayed some specific concerns and asked again.
If they had said "No" the second time, that too would have been accepted.
As they say, you get the government that you vote for. Clearly the Irish people are more than happy to continue voting in a Government who will keep asking them the same question over and over until they get the answer they want. If the people who originally voted "No" to Nice were annoyed at being asked a second time, then the Government should have been slaughtered at the General election and Bertie would have been out on his ear. Was he?
As I've been saying here all day today, as "No" vote is not a signal of intention. It's a rejection of a proposal. It doesn't imply nor require that the proposer will go and make any changes or otherwise do anything that any "No" voter is looking for.
A good example is the last abortion referendum. The proposal was defeated, but people were then expecting the government to do something on the back of the "No". But do what? If a proposal is defeated, no further action is required on that proposal. There's nothing *actually* wrong with presenting it for referendum multiple times. If it's a bad proposal, then it should follow that the electorate will continue to reject it and then remove the leaders who keep giving them bad proposals.0 -
That is not entirely accurate; we did not vote on exactly the same thing twice. While the text of the treaty was not changed, the proposed amendment to our constitution was. The following article was included to safeguard our neutrality:In support of this, I cite the last time this happened, which we all know happened in the Nice Treaty. You are obviously living in some completely parrellel universe if you cannot see this, it is a matter of historical fact. We rejected Nice, we were told to vote again-FACT.
To suggest that the 'No' vote in the first Nice referendum was somehow "ignored" is a complete fallacy.Article 29.4.9 wrote:The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7 of this section where that common defence would include the State.0 -
That is the topic of this thread, that instead of them continually putting us to a vote until we capitulate to what they want, that NO MEANS NO! In my opinion, there is a political class pushing this whole agenda, they oppose referendums and the veto of the people and are simply asking us to rubberstamp whatever whims they dream up. What literally scares me is that people cannot see this. I'm not some frustrated leftie or shinner, but I'm alarmed at this.
To be honest I don't think this happens for sinister reasons, it happens because the mechanics of trying to re-negotiate these treaties are too difficult. In the case of Nice, it was easier to modify Irish law with the triple lock and vote again on the same treaty. rather than go round all the houses once more to re-negotiate.
The same may happen with Lisbon. But I think pressure may come from other states to modify the treaty, so that in the event of a second Irish rejection they can proceed without us. A second rejected attempt would be a huge time-waster from their point of view, effectively putting them all right back on the starting blocks.
If that happens, then next time round NO may really mean NO.0
Advertisement