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
Why No ??
Options
Comments
-
Do you realise that Bertie was the President of the European council when the majority of the treat was negotiated. So is Cowen scared of Bertie tellin him off or something to that effect?
Well he isn't the president of the European Council now and he won't be when Biffo has to go back to the EU with his incontinence nappy on when we throw this treaty where it belongs, in the bin! I was mortified yesterday listening to the radio and Biffo literally demanding that we vote yes on this, that no was not an option, that the seven seals of revelation would land down on us if we vote no on this.0 -
You see here we go again. I'm not criticising the decisions made by the French and the Dutch. My issue is clearly with the decision of the EU to push the terms of what these people rejected, back upon them in the form of a treaty. I don't want to be closer to an EU that treats citizens like this. This notion of an infallible EU that know's all and see's all, much further than we the electorate can know or see, that brings us where they are going and when they have brought us there, ask's us how we like the scenery, but tell's us we can only give one answer and it better be in full communion with their thoughts. Will ya get up the yard!
Again! the most powerful figures in the EU are the members of the European Council. They also happen to be the heads of government of the 27 states. So are you saying they pushed it on themselves?0 -
The Irish commissioner has to be approved by the European Council. The council would block a commissioner they thought would be biased towards their home country.
If all the commissionares were enirely like-minded there would be no diversity or fairness in relation to the people they are representing. Why has there ever been an Irish commissioner if he/she is not allowed make decisions influenced by his/her nationality?
That is a genuine question, not an attack.0 -
Agreed, but I am sayin aside from their assigned areas, the EU commissionars will have the chance to veto any proposed changes to parts of the governing treaties. In that case, the Irish commissioner (providing we have one at the time) will obviously be more inclined to vote for whatever is most productive for Ireland.
Sigh. The Commission proposes legislation - it neither votes on it nor can veto it. Commissioners propose legislation on the area they're responsible for. Voting is the prerogative of the Council of Minsters and to a lesser extent the European Parliament (the voting rights of the latter increase to 95% of all legislation in Lisbon).
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
If all the commissionares were enirely like-minded there would be no diversity or fairness in relation to the people they are representing. Why has there ever been an Irish commissioner if he/she is not allowed make decisions influenced by his/her nationality?
That is a genuine question, not an attack.
Not everyone feels that nationality is the all important factor. I for one don't care if your Irish, German or whatever. If I was commissioner I would look to do what's best for the overall majority. I would not put the needs of a few thousand Irish ahead of millions of other Europeans. That is what member states look for when they select commissioners0 -
Advertisement
-
-
And herein lies the crux of the matter.If He/She was not biased towards Ireland then what is the point of having a commissioner from Ireland in the first place?
I imagine that if it weren't the case, eurosceptics would argue that we're being led by foreign interests. Upon until now, it's been ok, but 27 ministers is ludicrous.If all the commissionares were enirely like-minded there would be no diversity or fairness in relation to the people they are representing. Why has there ever been an Irish commissioner if he/she is not allowed make decisions influenced by his/her nationality?
That is a genuine question, not an attack.0 -
If all the commissionares were enirely like-minded there would be no diversity or fairness in relation to the people they are representing. Why has there ever been an Irish commissioner if he/she is not allowed make decisions influenced by his/her nationality?
That is a genuine question, not an attack.
The answer is that the EEC was originally a purely inter-governmental body, and the Commissioners did to a large extent represent their countries. Originally there was no European Parliament, and the watchdog role now played by the Parliament over the Commission was played by the Council of Ministers, who had limited powers.
Funnily enough, it was the Commission who campaigned for the creation of a directly elected Parliament, and who have been responsible primarily for pushing it along and making it more powerful.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
im voting yes
for a few reasons , 1st of all i believe that we as a nation are fooling ourselves if we think by voting no and isolationg ourselves from europe , we are strengthining our possition on the global stage , europe is made up of relativly small countries but as a unit is a powerfull block on the world stage , were we to move away from europe , do we honestly think that we could negotiate with the big global powers , china , india , russia , usa , why we would be swatted away like an annoying insect
the ship that is europe will sail on with or without us , we need to be on board , not rowing our own boat
were not switzerland , were very much a dependant nation on the edge of europe
2ndly and perhaps more importanly , im voting yes because i dont trust a single voice on the no side
sinn fein are opposed to the treaty simply because it gives them way more attention to be different from the mainstream , were they to be in favour , they would not be given near as much attention , they would simply be another small party like labour who are in favour, its worked for them though , there up in the polls today
as for the others , there the usual suspects of loopers and why is joe higgins on the airwaves several times a day , this man was rejected by the electorate last yr0 -
Were France and the Netherlands fooling themselves or isolating themselves when they voted NO ? I don't think so, they still seem to be integral parts of the EU, unless you are suggesting that the opinions of a French or Dutch voter carry more weight in Europe, in which case maybe some of the arguments of the NO campaign about how the opinions of the ordinary citizens of Europe are being ignored, may have some truth.gordon_gekko wrote: »im voting yes
for a few reasons , 1st of all i believe that we as a nation are fooling ourselves if we think by voting no and isolationg ourselves from europe
Is this how you decide who you vote for in a General Election too ? hmmmm, let me see, who is voting party X, oh that celebrity is, well they're a flake, so I can't vote for party X and that idiot is voting for party Y, so I won't support party Y...etc...etc.... etc. Incredible as it may seem and it is incredible, maybe Sinn Fein could be right this time, remember even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.gordon_gekko wrote: »2ndly and perhaps more importanly , im voting yes because i dont trust a single voice on the no side
Besides there seems to have been a great deal of foreboding from the YES side about all the things that they claim will go wrong if we get the decision wrong by voting NO, but what about the things that could go wrong if we get it wrong by voting YES. No politician has had the guts to say that he will resign if after voting YES, we are forced by the EU in the future to end our low rate of corporation tax. If it can't happen, then why not have to courage to make a resignation pledge or something similar, because at the moment its a case of "it can't happen" and if 2-3 years from now it does happen, they'll all shrug their shoulders, frown and say it couldn't have been foreseen, while thousands of workers are left high and dry as their jobs disappear abroad. The politicians jobs don't depend directly on the low tax rate and those whose jobs do, should consider their decision next Thursday very carefully.gordon_gekko wrote: »and why is joe higgins on the airwaves several times a day , this man was rejected by the electorate last yr
Do you have to be an elected politician to have any opinion anymore ? The fact is that almost all TDs are in favour of the Lisbon Treaty, so if a radio/tv show is looking for someone to put forward an argument for the NO side, then a former TD who opposes the treaty, is articulate and who is prepared to endure the name calling and vitriol from the YES campaign by voicing his opinions in the media, seems like a reasonable choice. Presumably following this line of argument, the appearance of former politicians such as Alan Dukes and Garret Fitzgerald in the media supporting a YES vote should be similarly questioned, since neither of them are elected TDs either and in Dukes case, he actually stood for election and lost his seat.
Just one more point, under the Lisbon Treaty we will lose our EU commissioner for 5 years out of every 15, but what will happen when the EU starts admitting new countries such as Croatia, Bosnia & Herz., Montenegro, Serbia, Albania, Turkey and other former Soviet states such as the Ukraine, Georgia etc. Will we lose our commissioner altogether or just have a commissioner for ten years out of every twenty ? And in Qualified Majority Voting, could the same thing happen as in the Eurovision, as all the new eastern members all have a similar agenda that may be very different from a small western country like ourselves.0 -
Advertisement
-
Just one more point, under the Lisbon Treaty we will lose our EU commissioner for 5 years out of every 15, but what will happen when the EU starts admitting new countries such as Croatia, Bosnia & Herz., Montenegro, Serbia, Albania, Turkey and other former Soviet states such as the Ukraine, Georgia etc. Will we lose our commissioner altogether or just have a commissioner for ten years out of every twenty ? And in Qualified Majority Voting, could the same thing happen as in the Eurovision, as all the new eastern members all have a similar agenda that may be very different from a small western country like ourselves.
No, it will remain at a one-third rotation for the foreseeable future. You do know the Commission will be reduced whether Lisbon passes or not, though?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
No politician has had the guts to say that he will resign if after voting YES, we are forced by the EU in the future to end our low rate of corporation tax. If it can't happen, then why not have to courage to make a resignation pledge or something similar, because at the moment its a case of "it can't happen" and if 2-3 years from now it does happen, they'll all shrug their shoulders, frown and say it couldn't have been foreseen, while thousands of workers are left high and dry as their jobs disappear abroad. The politicians jobs don't depend directly on the low tax rate and those whose jobs do, should consider their decision next Thursday very carefully.
Yes, I've had this thought myself, and if I were a politician I would make this pledge. On the other hand, do you think Sinn Fein's TDs would agree to resign en mass if in the next few years we were not forced to change corp tax? and we were not forced to send troops to a non-UN military mission. Where is the courage of their conviction that these things WILL happen?
Ix.0 -
Worth repeating...Agreed, but I am sayin aside from their assigned areas, the EU commissionars will have the chance to veto any proposed changes to parts of the governing treaties. In that case, the Irish commissioner (providing we have one at the time) will obviously be more inclined to vote for whatever is most productive for Ireland.
responded to by ScofflawSigh. The Commission proposes legislation - it neither votes on it nor can veto it. Commissioners propose legislation on the area they're responsible for. Voting is the prerogative of the Council of Minsters and to a lesser extent the European Parliament (the voting rights of the latter increase to 95% of all legislation in Lisbon).
Thank you Scofflaw! I was tearing my hair out when I saw BJC's lack of understanding.
BJC, this will sound condescending, and it is. Forgive me. I suggest you pause for a moment, perhaps a few days and consider how you ended up believing that the commission was the body in which Ireland's vetoes were cast.
I'd even suggest you talk to some of your friends and see if they have the same misunderstanding. Then correct it.
You now have me wondering how many of the no side don't understand this. I honestly would be interested in understanding why you thought this, because I can see that you have been seriously considering the treaty.
Again sorry for the tone, but I'm sure you can sense my frustration and Scofflaw's at the idea that someone might vote no (even partially) because they thought that Ireland would have no vetoes when we had no commissioner.
Ix.0 -
gordon_gekko wrote: »im voting yes
for a few reasons , 1st of all i believe that we as a nation are fooling ourselves if we think by voting no and isolationg ourselves from europe , we are strengthining our possition on the global stage , europe is made up of relativly small countries but as a unit is a powerfull block on the world stage , were we to move away from europe , do we honestly think that we could negotiate with the big global powers , china , india , russia , usa , why we would be swatted away like an annoying insect
the ship that is europe will sail on with or without us , we need to be on board , not rowing our own boat
were not switzerland , were very much a dependant nation on the edge of europe
2ndly and perhaps more importanly , im voting yes because i dont trust a single voice on the no side
sinn fein are opposed to the treaty simply because it gives them way more attention to be different from the mainstream , were they to be in favour , they would not be given near as much attention , they would simply be another small party like labour who are in favour, its worked for them though , there up in the polls today
as for the others , there the usual suspects of loopers and why is joe higgins on the airwaves several times a day , this man was rejected by the electorate last yr
I don't agree with this at all. Your comments above, in my humble opinion, seem to be based on a fear of something rather than an understanding of somethiing. Your post above says you are votiing yes because, in your own words:gordon_gekko wrote: »1st of all i believe that we as a nation are fooling ourselves if we think by voting no and isolationg ourselves from europe , we are strengthining our possition on the global stage , europe is made up of relativly small countries but as a unit is a powerfull block on the world stage
We are a part of Europe whether we reject or accept this treaty, just like the French and the Dutch who rejected the substance of this treaty, we, like them, are still at the centre of Europe. Your comment regarding the global stage, what does that mean??? I think that comment highlights the biggest problem here in Ireland, specifically that we all have to get up on the threadmill and run the rat race for Europe. Maybe some people here are tired of being on this theadmill called the global stage? Maybe some people just want to forget about competing with every country to our left and our right, in front of us and behind of us and just want to wake up some day without being lectured, browbeaten and pushed around and told to work harder and give more productivity based on the latest MRBI or ERSI survey, relative to where we are now and where we "should be" on the "global stage"...0 -
Again I have to say this is nonsense.There is clearly a difference in tone and argument in relation to this treaty. Also, this is on the back of the government having rejected the first answer that the people gave on the last occasion. I'm not automatically voting no because the government is telling me to vote yes. It's more because the government are clearly telling me that I CANNOT vote no, that NO is not an option. I feel sick at the leader of our country coming on the airwaves yesterday DEMANDING that we vote yes on this, it's like if he is saying, "look, yiz have to say yes on this 'cos these cu*nts will shoot the messenger"!!! It's pathethic and disgusting looking at the leader of our country being literally terrified and almost pissing himself at the thoughts of having to go back to Brussels with a no decision on this.
FG will tell you theres no answer but to Vote for them and FF the opposite.
Thats always the way.
Put it to you this way-there are people happy to vote no even though they are sickened to be on the same side as the likes of SF and the pro life movement and in the case of socialists the same side as the right wing libertas movement.
They are choosing to be so based on their interpretation of the treaty alone.
I'd urge everyone to quit the melodramatics and vote based on the issues.
Investigate the issues yourself,weight up the pro's and con's yourself.
Weed out the melodrama and the scaremongering on both sides and do what you think is best for you.
I've done that for me and I'm voting Yes.
It's preferable and much more practical than the "protest" vote you described in the first post of yours I replied to.0 -
I dont have a very good understanding of politics. So in an attempt to get some sort of idea of what is going on I read the booklet that was delivered to houses around the country to inform on the details.
There was an explanation on how Ireland's miltary would have to be upgraded, but more importantly that we would be losing our neutrality because of a commitment to the EU to assist in responding to threats.
Is this the case? If so that alone is a deal breaker for me.0 -
I dont have a very good understanding of politics. So in an attempt to get some sort of idea of what is going on I read the booklet that was delivered to houses around the country to inform on the details.
There was an explanation on how Ireland's miltary would have to be upgraded, but more importantly that we would be losing our neutrality because of a commitment to the EU to assist in responding to threats.
Is this the case? If so that alone is a deal breaker for me.
This is not the case. I haven't read that booklet, but the impression I get is that most people driving that point home have their own agendas and are seeking to manipulate people's fears to get their way. I'm in France this year so unable to vote, and getting rather worried at the prospect of a no vote for absurd/dishonest reasons, as I think it would be seriously harmful and embarrassing for Ireland, and that there are better ways to express our displeasure with the Irish government like, y'know, not voting for them...
*googlegoogle*
Right... Jesus, I see what the problem is... It's very easy to find arguments against the treaty, or Irish politicians rambling in support of it, but it's damn hard to find a straightforward explanation of what the treaty will/won't do, coupled with a direct link to the relevant portions of the treaty..."Will the Treaty of Lisbon affect Ireland’s neutrality?
Ireland’s neutrality involves a range of considerations not all of which are related to EU membership.
At present the Constitution of Ireland provides that Ireland shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to the existing treaties governing the EU. The proposed amendment to the Constitution provides that this be continued in respect of the existing treaties and in respect of the Treaty of Lisbon."
(referendum commission http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_eu.html#d)D. Common Foreign and Security Policy
Common Foreign and Security Policy covers foreign policy and defence policy. The main decisions in this area must be made unanimously. The proposed change to the Constitution would continue the present arrangements for Ireland’s military neutrality.B. Areas where Ireland may opt in or opt out
Ireland is not obliged to take part in, or be bound by, decisions in what is known as the “Area of Freedom, Security and Justice”. This covers issues such as asylum, immigration, border controls, judicial co-operation in criminal matters and police co-operation.
Ireland and the UK may each decide to be involved in particular issues - they may opt in or opt out of particular decisions. This special arrangement for Ireland and the UK has been in existence since these areas came within the remit of the EU in 1999. In practice, Ireland has opted in to a number of decisions, for example, in relation to asylum and judicial co-operation and has not exercised its right to opt in to others, for example, border controls.0 -
I know I've posted this elsewhere but this in my view this is a good source to answer basic questions about the Treaty, whatever way you think you want to vote.
http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/faq/index_en.htm0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,204 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 16954
Ahern and Dunphy going at it on Radio 1.Moderator: Television, Psychology and Dublin County North.
CMod: Entertainment
0 -
I dont have a very good understanding of politics. So in an attempt to get some sort of idea of what is going on I read the booklet that was delivered to houses around the country to inform on the details.
There was an explanation on how Ireland's miltary would have to be upgraded, but more importantly that we would be losing our neutrality because of a commitment to the EU to assist in responding to threats.
Is this the case? If so that alone is a deal breaker for me.
The short answer is that nothing in the Treaty is contrary to Ireland's neutrality, because we have the same standard protection clause we've had in all the other EU treaties. If that clause offers no protection, then we haven't been neutral since 1992.
The clause in question actually says: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 the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
We do have a duty to provide 'aid and assistance', but not military aid. The phrase "This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States" was inserted at Irish insistence in Maastricht in 1992 to cover our neutrality (and that of Austria, Sweden etc).
The possible "common defence" arrangements we are not part of, and have a constitutional amendment against which would require a separate referendum to change.
On the other hand, the Treaty does contain a commitment to "progressively improve military capabilities". I don't find it particularly worrying, because that's already the remit of our Department of Defence. It is not a commitment to increase the Department of Defence's budget, although I'm sure Willie O'Dea would be delighted if it was.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't agree with this at all. Your comments above, in my humble opinion, seem to be based on a fear of something rather than an understanding of somethiing. Your post above says you are votiing yes because, in your own words:
We are a part of Europe whether we reject or accept this treaty, just like the French and the Dutch who rejected the substance of this treaty, we, like them, are still at the centre of Europe. Your comment regarding the global stage, what does that mean??? I think that comment highlights the biggest problem here in Ireland, specifically that we all have to get up on the threadmill and run the rat race for Europe. Maybe some people here are tired of being on this theadmill called the global stage? Maybe some people just want to forget about competing with every country to our left and our right, in front of us and behind of us and just want to wake up some day without being lectured, browbeaten and pushed around and told to work harder and give more productivity based on the latest MRBI or ERSI survey, relative to where we are now and where we "should be" on the "global stage"...
you seem to view europe as some sort of sordid overbearing dictator
i for one have never felt any form of opression from europe , i never wake up thinking , i wonder what europe wants me to do today
oh and to the person who said i vote based on which party is in favour of something , i see nothing wrong with that , i trust those on the yes side a hell of a lot more than i trust those on the no side , that may be a slightly unsophisticated criteria , its not my sole criteria i might add , i believe we need to be united with our european neighbours, were not important globally speaking , lets not fool ourselves , we not at all self sufficent0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Again I have to say this is nonsense.
FG will tell you theres no answer but to Vote for them and FF the opposite.
Thats always the way.
Put it to you this way-there are people happy to vote no even though they are sickened to be on the same side as the likes of SF and the pro life movement and in the case of socialists the same side as the right wing libertas movement.
They are choosing to be so based on their interpretation of the treaty alone.
I'd urge everyone to quit the melodramatics and vote based on the issues.
Investigate the issues yourself,weight up the pro's and con's yourself.
Weed out the melodrama and the scaremongering on both sides and do what you think is best for you.
I've done that for me and I'm voting Yes.
It's preferable and much more practical than the "protest" vote you described in the first post of yours I replied to.
I'm not voting no as a protest, I just don't like the whole direction of this thing and the way in which this matter has been dealt with makes me cynical and suspicious. I also don't like the way the whole thing seems to come down to our economy and whether it is better or worse in the future being dependant on whether we vote yes or no for lisbon. Is there not more to us as a nation than our economy???0 -
gordon_gekko wrote: »you seem to view europe as some sort of sordid overbearing dictator
i for one have never felt any form of opression from europe , i never wake up thinking , i wonder what europe wants me to do today
Well I feel like I'm being dictated to on this treaty. I feel like the government is being overbearing and almost threatening on the Lisbon Treaty. On the basis of what is in the treaty, the fact that Bifffo won't give a clear guarantee that the provisions within the treaty on collective bargaining rights for workers cannot be guaranteed to have any meaning here, although we are being told we have to yote yes for this treaty, this would make me vote against it for reasons relating to the treaty itself.0 -
Now we're basically being told that we can't enjoy fundamental human rights that will be enjoyed by other EU citizens because Michael O' Leary and the likes of the American Chamber of Commerce won't let us??? How democratic is that???0
-
Now we're basically being told that we can't enjoy fundamental human rights that will be enjoyed by other EU citizens because Michael O' Leary and the likes of the American Chamber of Commerce won't let us??? How democratic is that???
Well our economy is geared towards international investment and MNC's like no other in Europe. If we want to continue with that we have to make sure that new legislation does not turn them off Ireland as we need to continue attracting future investment. In other words you can't bite the hand that feeds you if you want to continue being fed. Sacrifice's might have to be made for the overall good.0 -
On the basis of what is in the treaty, the fact that Bifffo won't give a clear guarantee that the provisions within the treaty on collective bargaining rights for workers cannot be guaranteed to have any meaning here, although we are being told we have to yote yes for this treaty, this would make me vote against it for reasons relating to the treaty itself.
If the treaty gets rejected though the charter won't be law at all, and it's even less likely that such rights would be granted in Ireland. You really should vote on the treaty itself, rather than on how our government chooses to implement it.
An interesting parallel here is that the no side is taking vague aspirations like the military clause, which we have in effect an opt-out of, and saying this will lead to all kinds of horrors.... and then at the same time saying that the charter of rights is too vague to have any meaning.
Let's be honest here. The reason certain parts of the treaty are vague is that countries wanted space to do as they wished in certain areas. You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's an example of compromise and what you might call lattitude, showing that there is not an intention to impose iron rule from Brussels.
Ix.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Again I have to say this is nonsense.
FG will tell you theres no answer but to Vote for them and FF the opposite.
Thats always the way.
No it isn't always the way. I've never seen the likes of this before from the government or from the opposition.
To some people, certainly for me, the most important issue at hand here is that for the first time that I can recall, we are being very clearly instructed on what to do, before we even debate what is in this treaty, we are being told that if we fail to follow the instruction, there will be dire consequences for us all. Now I don't know about you, but for me that is as close as to a text book definition as you could find of threatening an entire electorate. This is not melodrama or scaremongering, this is the situation we are looking at, to my memory a situation unprecedented. This notion of "just stick to the treaty" is a load of crap. It's like buying a freezer, filling it full of frozen food and then putting it in a house that has no electricity, it simply won't work.Deleted User wrote: »They are choosing to be so based on their interpretation of the treaty alone.
I'd urge everyone to quit the melodramatics and vote based on the issues.
Investigate the issues yourself,weight up the pro's and con's yourself.
Weed out the melodrama and the scaremongering on both sides and do what you think is best for you.0 -
No it isn't always the way. I've never seen the likes of this before from the government or from the opposition.
To some people, certainly for me, the most important issue at hand here is that for the first time that I can recall, we are being very clearly instructed on what to do, before we even debate what is in this treaty, we are being told that if we fail to follow the instruction, there will be dire consequences for us all. Now I don't know about you, but for me that is as close as to a text book definition as you could find of threatening an entire electorate. This is not melodrama or scaremongering, this is the situation we are looking at, to my memory a situation unprecedented. This notion of "just stick to the treaty" is a load of crap. It's like buying a freezer, filling it full of frozen food and then putting it in a house that has no electricity, it simply won't work.
As far as I know, the political parties have not said that they will do horrible things to us if we vote "NO". In other words they have not threatened us.
What they have done is state their belief that the consequences of rejection will be very negative for Ireland, just as the "YES" side have said that the consequences of acceptance will be very negative. That's not the same as a threat in my book.
The parties have been a bit vague about what might happen if we vote NO. Their hands are probably tied in this regard, because if they explicitly stated what might happen, it could prejudice Ireland's negotiating position in the event of a NO vote. (Because it would reveal their expectations to their negotiating counter-parts).0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement