Why are YOU voting no ?

PrivateEye

1) 460 million people are left without a vote on this one, including peope in states that already rejected 90% of this Treaty in 2004. When people tell me "thats their internal problems" or whatever, I don't see that as being the best P.R for European democracy.

2)Our own influence- lets be honest, we are a small fish in a big pond. We hold considerable influence in the EU, and I don't think reducing our voting power is wise. Fine Gaels slogan, "lets be at the heart of europe" is most ironic, because we'll be LESS at the heart of things post-Lisbon.

3) I feel the whole thing is far too open to legal interpretation. For instance, nations obliged to assit one another in specific circumstances. What qualifies as an 'act of terrorism'?

4) Increased military spening: True, neutrality is safe...but why increase spending on defence?

5)IBECs submission to the National Council on Europe was scary. A Yes Vote (on the way out the door, google it...) creates oppurtunities with regards the 'liberalisation of services' amongst which they include health.

6)The government are childish. "GOOD FOR EUROPE" slogans, and calling people Trots for disagreeing with them. You can be pro-Europe, and not like an individual treaty?

7) Dare I say it, but the idea of sovreignty is something I strongly believe in. While I wouldn't go as far as the 'PEOPLE DIED FOR X,Y OR Z' stuff, I do thinkthe shifting of further powers is a bad idea.

***IT PAINS ME greatly to be on the same side of the fence as Coir and Youth Defence, but such is life..... I'd hate to ever agree with the PDs if I was a Yes Voter. I hope on June 12th, people look beyond tired party politics and vote NON, like the French

molloyjh

PrivateEye wrote: »

1) 460 million people are left without a vote on this one, including peope in states that already rejected 90% of this Treaty in 2004. When people tell me "thats their internal problems" or whatever, I don't see that as being the best P.R for European democracy.

There was no legal requirement for a referendum in any other country. Their elected Governments are ratifying this treaty the same way many ratified the Cluster Bomb ban and numerous other treaties. Its one of the numerous things they were elected to do.

PrivateEye wrote: »

2)Our own influence- lets be honest, we are a small fish in a big pond. We hold considerable influence in the EU, and I don't think reducing our voting power is wise. Fine Gaels slogan, "lets be at the heart of europe" is most ironic, because we'll be LESS at the heart of things post-Lisbon.

On an individual level and Irish citizen will have more power than a German citizen after Lisbon, the same way we do now. Any overall loss of power will actualy be fairly minimal.

mumhaabu

I'm voting NO because of Taxes and Immigration, We need to lower taxes and restrict access to our Labour Market because incase anyone hasn't noticed Oil is $135/barrel and our economy is collapsing fast. Charity begins at home, we need a more right wing conservative governance not Socialism shoved in from Europe. Keep Taxes Low.

VOTE NO

sink

mumhaabu wrote: »

I'm voting NO because of Taxes and Immigration, We need to lower taxes and restrict access to our Labour Market because incase anyone hasn't noticed Oil is $135/barrel and our economy is collapsing fast. Charity begins at home, we need a more right wing conservative governance not Socialism shoved in from Europe. Keep Taxes Low.

VOTE NO

Voting yes or no won't have any effect on either of those.

PrivateEye

"Its one of the numerous things they were elected to do"

.....But seeing as MORE Fine Gael voters (to take one party...) fancy a No ticket than a Yes one, is it fair to allow political parties to decide on such referenda? I think the Lisbon Treaty warrants a vote in the various states it will affect myself. I see where you're coming from, but I just think this goes beyond who you elect to manage your own state.

PrivateEye

Húrin wrote: »

I intend to vote No because I want economic growth to cease.

Then you're ticking the wrong box

Húrin

sink wrote: »

Wow, a bible basher who wants us to suffer for our sins perhaps?

No, the opposite in fact. I want for the third world not to have to suffer for our sins any more than they have already. Western Economic growth is causing ecological collapse all over the world, and not making the west itself that much of a better place anymore.

I think that the lust for further growth is irrational, and is evidence that our civilisation is throwing the gift of foresight completely overboard.

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I took that to be sarcasm, tbh.

I'm completely serious. This really is the most offensive taboo isn't it?

PrivateEye wrote: »

Then you're ticking the wrong box

Then I shall reconsider. Both sides, predictably, claim that they are on the side of "growth" (read: money money money!)

Another issue I am concerned about is immigration. As soon as there's a whiff of recession, most people shout "lock the borders!" as if they don't know about the suffering of our neighbours the Africans. It would be morally wrong to create a fortress Europe against African people who are just trying to survive.

BMH

PrivateEye wrote: »

"Its one of the numerous things they were elected to do"

.....But seeing as MORE Fine Gael voters (to take one party...) fancy a No ticket than a Yes one, is it fair to allow political parties to decide on such referenda? I think the Lisbon Treaty warrants a vote in the various states it will affect myself. I see where you're coming from, but I just think this goes beyond who you elect to manage your own state.

Why not take the party that's actually in power...
The very fact that the majority of people voting no are basing this decision on their own lack of knowledge of the issues shows that we're far too stupid as a people to deal with this sh¡t. Why does Lisbon warrant a vote but not the annual budget?

sink

Húrin wrote: »

No, the opposite in fact. I want for the third world not to have to suffer for our sins any more than they have already. Western Economic growth is causing ecological collapse all over the world, and not making the west itself that much of a better place anymore.

I think that the lust for further growth is irrational, and is evidence that our civilisation is throwing the gift of foresight completely overboard.


I'm completely serious. This really is the most offensive taboo isn't it?

I think the EU is learning far faster than any other power block, that sustainability is more import than growth. This is also the position I hold. I support Nuclear power the EU is neutral here but provides a framework to spread nuclear power throughout the Union (EURATOM). The EU believes in controlling inflation is far more important than keeping year on year growth, so do I. That is why it has kept interest rates at 4% throughout the credit crisis and is even talking about raising them unlike the fed.

The EU is also bringing in much tougher environmental legislation than anywhere else, for instance the Union has higher VAT on petrol and diesel than anywhere else in the world and is going to keep it high even with crude oil going through the roof in order to encourage adoption of sustainable alternates. It is also banning the use of fertilisers and pesticides that have a negative effect on the natural ecology, against the wishes of it's large farming lobbies.

The EU is also the biggest aid donator in the world bigger than the US, it also believes in soft power and minimum use of hard power. It uses it's soft power to get foreign governments to reform and become more open and democratic. The EU is not perfect but it the best thing that has happened to the world in a long time. Can you imagine a world without the EU and where the US is even more influential than it is now?

It sounds like you should be a supporter of the EU not a detractor. We live in reality and the world needs real solutions, so you can try as hard as you can to stop the west progressing, but if you really thought about it you would see that it's impossible and it also wouldn't be desirable.

TheDemiurge

I'm voting No to Lisbon primarily because when we rejected Nice in the first referendum we were asked to vote again and deliver the "right" answer and that in itself was enough to turn me off Irish and European politics for good.

With respect to the EU itself, streamlining it and making it more efficient (as we are told Lisbon is required for) is not something that I myself want. A more efficient EU would simply make it easier for the Commission and Council to act in an undemocratic fashion, irrespective of whether that is for our good or not.

Auditors have refused to sign off on the EU's accounts for 13 years - the Commission had to resign in full a few years back for fraud, for God's sake - and we are now supposed to vote to make all that "work better"? :eek::mad:

johnnyrotten

I'am Not

sink

TheDemiurge wrote: »

I'm voting No to Lisbon primarily because when we rejected Nice in the first referendum we were asked to vote again and deliver the "right" answer and that in itself was enough to turn me off Irish and European politics for good.

With respect to the EU itself, streamlining it and making it more efficient (as we are told Lisbon is required for) is not something that I myself want. A more efficient EU would simply make it easier for the Commission and Council to act in an undemocratic fashion, irrespective of whether that is for our good or not.

Auditors have refused to sign off on the EU's accounts for 13 years - the Commission had to resign in full a few years back for fraud, for God's sake - and we are now supposed to vote to make all that "work better"? :eek::mad:

I take it you haven't read the mountains of other post here, because if you did you would read the exact same arguments you're providing being shot down.

ixtlan

mumhaabu wrote: »

I'm voting NO because of Taxes and Immigration, We need to lower taxes and restrict access to our Labour Market because incase anyone hasn't noticed Oil is $135/barrel and our economy is collapsing fast. Charity begins at home, we need a more right wing conservative governance not Socialism shoved in from Europe. Keep Taxes Low.

VOTE NO

And I hope you realise that many other no voters are doing so because they believe we need more left wing liberal governance not Imperial Capitalism shoved in from Europe....

Seems to me when such 2 such viewpoints oppose something it must be pretty much in the middle.

Ix.

democrates

BMH wrote: »

The very fact that the majority of people voting no are basing this decision on their own lack of knowledge of the issues shows that we're far too stupid as a people to deal with this sh¡t.
Why does Lisbon warrant a vote but not the annual budget?

I wouldn't assume a simplistic correlation between knowing all about the EU and intelligence. If we agree the EU is important to citizens since decisions affecting our lives are made there, one would expect that our elected representatives make great efforts to keep us informed about what's going on in the EU, but they do not. The lack of media coverage is also appalling, instead we're treated to a diet of national panto-politics.

Our politicians were up to their necks in detail about the EU constitution with Bertie brokering the final deal, good work with his fellow politicians. But where was the campaign to inform Irish citizens on it, or since then on Lisbon? It was left very late to start the pro Lisbon campaign, that avoidance tactic may now backfire. If this is such a good deal I'd expect our politicians would be delighted to make political hay with the good news and milk it to the max.

The campaign tagline "get the complete picture" sets people up for unease, first because the bit of information in the booklet and the website can claim no such purchase. We're assured our politicians may not have read the treaty but have had expert advice, yet this material is not shared with the public. In any event, even a full reading of consolidated texts by experts yields disagreement on the full implications, some of it would likely need to be resolved in the ECJ at some later date.

So no one is in a position to elucidate an authorative "complete picture". Calling people stupid for not having the complete picture will only backfire. Like climate change where ordinary people don't have the datasets, the computer models, or specialised education in all areas, it's partially down to whom you trust.

Do we trust that what our politicians and other EU politicians say will equal what they do. If citizens come first in their scheme of things, why is it that the politicians of 26 member states avoid consulting their citizens.

To the core of your point, if it's so complex the masses really shouldn't be expected to get the complete picture, and therefore shouldn't be the ones to decide. It's not a perfect situation I fully agree, but the alternative is ceding control of our lives to an elite, and that's far too Orwellian a scenario to risk.

democrates

sink wrote: »

I take it you haven't read the mountains of other post here, because if you did you would read the exact same arguments you're providing being shot down.

I wouldn't agree those arguments have been shot down at all at all.

More detail was gone into and I'll concede on some of my points that the problems aren't as black as originally painted, but they're far from pearly white either.

BMH

democrates wrote: »

To the core of your point, if it's so complex the masses really shouldn't be expected to get the complete picture, and therefore shouldn't be the ones to decide. It's not a perfect situation I fully agree, but the alternative is ceding control of our lives to an elite, and that's far too Orwellian a scenario to risk.

I agree completely that the Yes campaign has been abysmal.

The independent resources put in place, however, do an excellent job summing up the Treaty and explaining the concepts involved. Yet it's clear that it's message isn't getting across. There is an obvious ignorance of the treaty nationwide and people aren't basing their votes on the issues(this is just as relevant to the Yes side). We've ceded control of the running of the state to the Dáil since the foundation of the state, and they've handled issues far more important than this on our behalf. This is going to have far less an effect on our lives than most of the other stuff passed by the Dáil this year. Contentious single issues with clear ramifications are the only things suitable for a plebiscite or referendum. I know that by law this referendum has to be held, and that this wont change in the foreseeable future, but voting No because other countries have the sense to avoid the mess this debate has become is pretty silly. Besides, that was the decision of other countries, not the EU. The EU can't force them to hold referenda.

Scofflaw

democrates wrote:

But look at little Libertas versus the government. On both sides of any issue there will be vested interests, some more organised than others, some better resourced than others. When it comes to the interests of the citizen versus big money, the citizen interest groups tend to be relatively miniscule.

I find that ironically funny, I'm sorry to say.

Libertas are outspending Fianna Fail (for example) about 2:1 (€1.5m Libertas vs €700,000 FF), yet Libertas are not registered as a third party for the tally because they have less than 300 members. Fianna Fail has a membership base in the tens of thousands, and received nearly a million first preference votes at the last election.

So while I agree that Libertas versus Fianna Fáil represents big money versus citizen interest, I'm afraid it's the other way round from the way you have put it. Libertas are tiny only in terms of citizen participation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sink

democrates wrote: »

I wouldn't agree those arguments have been shot down at all at all.

More detail was gone into and I'll concede on some of my points that the problems aren't as black as originally painted, but they're far from pearly white either.

I'll agree that it's not entirely black and white, but his points have been debated to death and he did not mention anything that hasn't been refuted.

democrates

Scofflaw wrote: »

I find that ironically funny, I'm sorry to say.

Libertas are outspending Fianna Fail (for example) about 2:1 (€1.5m Libertas vs €700,000 FF), yet Libertas are not registered as a third party for the tally because they have less than 300 members. Fianna Fail has a membership base in the tens of thousands, and received nearly a million first preference votes at the last election.

So while I agree that Libertas versus Fianna Fáil represents big money versus citizen interest, I'm afraid it's the other way round from the way you have put it. Libertas are tiny only in terms of citizen participation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

In fairness Libertas is a bad example of what I'm talking about, they are unusually well resourced for a group going against encumbent interests. FF have been around a lot longer than Libertas so support base is hardly a fair comparison, besides, the No position of polls would suggest they're position on Lisbon is not a niche one.

The FF grassroots army can go door to door, you can put a value on that by comparing with how much it costs to get leaflets delivered or market research, so their 'spend' figure greatly understates their economic position.

The main risk from vested interests and centralised power is that for a lot less than Libertas have to spend to sway the masses, you can bribe a politician.

democrates

BMH wrote: »

I agree completely that the Yes campaign has been abysmal.

The independent resources put in place, however, do an excellent job summing up the Treaty and explaining the concepts involved. Yet it's clear that it's message isn't getting across. There is an obvious ignorance of the treaty nationwide and people aren't basing their votes on the issues(this is just as relevant to the Yes side). We've ceded control of the running of the state to the Dáil since the foundation of the state, and they've handled issues far more important than this on our behalf. This is going to have far less an effect on our lives than most of the other stuff passed by the Dáil this year. Contentious single issues with clear ramifications are the only things suitable for a plebiscite or referendum. I know that by law this referendum has to be held, and that this wont change in the foreseeable future, but voting No because other countries have the sense to avoid the mess this debate has become is pretty silly. Besides, that was the decision of other countries, not the EU. The EU can't force them to hold referenda.

But who are the formal power players in the EU, only representatives from member states. Together they've created the EU as a way to abdicate responsibility, "don't hold me accountable at the next election, it was the EU whodunnit". Even representative democracy is being continuously diluted.

It's the opposite direction we're being taken to where we should be going, which is to inform and involve citizens more directly, treat people like responsible adults. That means the political establishment won't automatically get it their way every time, so the ball is in their court to bring the people with them instead of retreating to elitist dictat.

Húrin

sink wrote: »

I think the EU is learning far faster than any other power block, that sustainability is more import than growth. This is also the position I hold. I support Nuclear power the EU is neutral here but provides a framework to spread nuclear power throughout the Union (EURATOM). The EU believes in controlling inflation is far more important than keeping year on year growth, so do I. That is why it has kept interest rates at 4% throughout the credit crisis and is even talking about raising them unlike the fed.

The EU is also bringing in much tougher environmental legislation than anywhere else, for instance the Union has higher VAT on petrol and diesel than anywhere else in the world and is going to keep it high even with crude oil going through the roof in order to encourage adoption of sustainable alternates. It is also banning the use of fertilisers and pesticides that have a negative effect on the natural ecology, against the wishes of it's large farming lobbies.

The EU is also the biggest aid donator in the world bigger than the US, it also believes in soft power and minimum use of hard power. It uses it's soft power to get foreign governments to reform and become more open and democratic. The EU is not perfect but it the best thing that has happened to the world in a long time. Can you imagine a world without the EU and where the US is even more influential than it is now?

It sounds like you should be a supporter of the EU not a detractor. We live in reality and the world needs real solutions, so you can try as hard as you can to stop the west progressing, but if you really thought about it you would see that it's impossible and it also wouldn't be desirable.

What makes you think I oppose the EU? What makes you think I oppose progress? All I want is for western civilisation to realise that economic growth should no longer be a priority, and to recognise the incompatiblity of wanting to stabilise the climate, and wanting to grow the economy.

To claim that a No vote is a rejection of the EU is stupidly simplistic.

I agree that the EU is far more progressive on climate change than the US or China, but are they putting sustainability above growth? Both Britain and Germany are launching into a new phase of building new coal-fired power plants. Denmark is trying, along with its other Arctic neighbours (who are not in the EU) to extract and burn whatever is under the soon-to-melt northern ice. And every country is trying to expand global trade and build new runways. Is this sustainable? No.

Scofflaw

democrates wrote: »

In fairness Libertas is a bad example of what I'm talking about, they are unusually well resourced for a group going against encumbent interests. FF have been around a lot longer than Libertas so support base is hardly a fair comparison, besides, the No position of polls would suggest they're position on Lisbon is not a niche one.

Unfortunately, it doesn't indicate that. It indicates people are intending to vote No. It doesn't tell you whether they are doing so for the reasons given by Libertas.

democrates wrote: »

The FF grassroots army can go door to door, you can put a value on that by comparing with how much it costs to get leaflets delivered or market research, so their 'spend' figure greatly understates their economic position.

Well, no, because grassroots support is grassroots support - isn't that the point?

democrates wrote: »

The main risk from vested interests and centralised power is that for a lot less than Libertas have to spend to sway the masses, you can bribe a politician.

In terms of a referendum, that would be pointless.

The problem here, I think, is the default assumption that if you're opposed to what the majority of politicians think, you are therefore on the side of the citizen against the government. In a democracy, that is a fallacy, because the citizens elect the government.

cordially,
Scofflaw

cat&mouse

Reasons:
The big white book, What is in it? I'm more curious noow!!
How many Articles are they? Around 150 or so.
The Pollution Act, and other acts...
Why will TV or Radio not have politicians on the phone line to talk direct to the public and answer questions, instead of the interviewer asking the questions?
Those are a few of my NO reasons.

Scofflaw

cat&mouse wrote: »

Reasons:
The big white book, What is in it? I'm more curious noow!!
How many Articles are they? Around 150 or so.
The Pollution Act, and other acts...
Why will TV or Radio not have politicians on the phone line to talk direct to the public and answer questions, instead of the interviewer asking the questions?
Those are a few of my NO reasons.

Interesting. What are you voting on exactly?

intrigued,
Scofflaw

cat&mouse

That's all I have to say !!

sink

Really strange!

genericgoon

Húrin wrote: »

What makes you think I oppose the EU? What makes you think I oppose progress? All I want is for western civilisation to realise that economic growth should no longer be a priority, and to recognise the incompatiblity of wanting to stabilise the climate, and wanting to grow the economy.

To claim that a No vote is a rejection of the EU is stupidly simplistic.

I agree that the EU is far more progressive on climate change than the US or China, but are they putting sustainability above growth? Both Britain and Germany are launching into a new phase of building new coal-fired power plants. Denmark is trying, along with its other Arctic neighbours (who are not in the EU) to extract and burn whatever is under the soon-to-melt northern ice. And every country is trying to expand global trade and build new runways. Is this sustainable? No.

The problem is your average Joe is hardly going to put his job on the line for long term sustainabilty is he? Unfortunately the ability of the general public to think ahead instead of just in the now is rather limited. This in turn means politicians have to pander to the short-term views of the general public who will almost without exception put jobs/more money now over some unknown way fo helping the future population. Voting No is hardly going to change that?

Also at cat&mouse. WTF? O_O

johnnyq

cat&mouse wrote: »

Reasons:
The big white book, What is in it? I'm more curious noow!!
How many Articles are they? Around 150 or so.
The Pollution Act, and other acts...
Why will TV or Radio not have politicians on the phone line to talk direct to the public and answer questions, instead of the interviewer asking the questions?
Those are a few of my NO reasons.

Cryptic.... I like it!

I'm sure you're heart is in the right place

democrates

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, it doesn't indicate that. It indicates people are intending to vote No. It doesn't tell you whether they are doing so for the reasons given by Libertas.

It indicates that their position "No" is not a niche one, and that's all I said, I didn't say all No voters shared the rationale behind Libertas' "No" position.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, no, because grassroots support is grassroots support - isn't that the point?

It's a point, it's not the point I'm making, which is, a party that's had huge support since the founding of the state has an army of volunteers at it's disposal to go door to door convincing people of the party line.

If you set up a brand new organisation to campaign for the alternative position, you won't have that standing army, so you're going to have to make up for the lack of all those campaigners with spending on leaflets, posters etc.

Scofflaw wrote: »

In terms of a referendum, that would be pointless.

The problem here, I think, is the default assumption that if you're opposed to what the majority of politicians think, you are therefore on the side of the citizen against the government. In a democracy, that is a fallacy, because the citizens elect the government.

Again that's not what I said (are you tired this evening ):

democrates wrote:

The main risk from vested interests and centralised power is that for a lot less than Libertas have to spend to sway the masses, you can bribe a politician.

And you won't find the "default assumption" you posited in any of my posts on boards or anywhere else, because it was never my view so why would I say it. Interesting speculation, but wrong, and I stand by the point I actually made.

sink

democrates wrote: »

It's a point, it's not the point I'm making, which is, a party that's had huge support since the founding of the state has an army of volunteers at it's disposal to go door to door convincing people of the party line.

It's also proven itself in the eyes of the public, although it's reputation has been damaged in recent times. In comparison Libertas has barely been on the scene 6 months, it has not been properly vetted by the public or the media so why should it have equal support to an organisation that's been around since the founding of the state? If it did have as much backing could you not also apply your argument that it would be easy to bribe Declan Ganley to get what you want?