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
For the "If you don't know, vote no" brigade.
Options
Comments
-
It is not a case of two contracts.
Yes it is.
Contract A (Yes): Rome + Brussels + SEA + Maastricht + Amsterdam + Nice + Lisbon
Contract B (No): Rome + Brussels + SEA + Maastricht + Amsterdam + Nice
Are you saying that if people don't understand A then they'll implicitly understand B even the bits that haven't happened yet?
I find it hard to believe that someone would not be able to understand Lisbon but be able to understand Nice.0 -
There is an argument though that people do know what the current set of rules are by 'immersion' as they are living in the EU day-in day-out. At least they know the current situation (warts and all) better than what the proposed Lisbon Treaty will result in. Therefore, without understanding what is in the Treaty, people can legitimately vote "No" as they would be voting for the status quo.
This is a valid point of view, but let me offer another. The status quo in the EU has been stability created by a gradual closer bonding of the member states. We negotiate, agree, and implement new treaties.
If Lisbon falls that will be a divergence from the status quo. We will not be able to implement the reforms that the members states jointly agreed were necessary. The process that began decades ago will be temporarily stalled.
Now I'm not going to scaremonger. Life will go on, the EU will go on. Negotiations will go on in some manner. Maybe Lisbon will be amended. Maybe a new treaty will be created. Certainly though there will be great disappointment among those promoting the EU project and a big delay in any reforms. Also there is no guarantee that the new treaty will be "better" than the existing one. Would you trade some further voting weight to keep a permanent commissioner? Would you agree to increased contributions to the EU to increase our voting weight? Would you like to define sub-groups within the EU who are neutral and have no military contact? Would you like to withdraw from the battlegroups, and hence many likely UN missions?
The No side seems to think that any re-negotiation will easily result in improvements for Ireland in all areas. That view is not a negotiation. A negotiation is give and take. If the EU states give us something they will want to take something too. You don't go to the table with your list of things that you want and offer nothing. Lisbon was considered a good deal by everyone. If it falls we cannot know what we will get a few years down the line.
Ix0 -
if you don't know, vote no?
how bout
take a guess and vote yes0 -
if you don't know, vote no?
how bout
take a guess and vote yes
At this stage it might just about be the best catchphrase for the Yes side. regrettably the Yes side has nothing sexier than it changes a few things for the better, tidies up a good few things and doesn't launch into any immediate wars. No contest against the evil of abortion, annihilation, nuclear fallout, loss of democracy, wide scale unemployment, decimated agriculture and the fate of the rest of Europe. No wonder they're struggling.
I must say though much I as support exercising our right to vote I find the notion of using such a half-witted excuse of "if you don't know ..." very disturbing indeed . Read the damned thing, go to the website. Look at the Referendum Commission leaflet. There is plenty of "simple stuff" out there for people, too lazy to bother so at least if you vote No you know why.
Edit: Some links for background reading. Thought there might be a sticky for this stuff.
http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/glance/index_en.htm
http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/faq/index_en.htm
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:SOM:EN:HTML -The Treaty text.
http://www.lisbontreaty.ie/eutreaty/Consolidated-EUTreaties-English-amended-by-ReformTreaty.pdf (479 pages of all treaties affected)0 -
That's ridiculous, a No vote will damage Ireland's credibility at the EU stage and we'll likely be excluded from future reforms that member states want to take on. If a boring document on the structure of the EU can conjure up issues like abortion and euthanasia, and fail because of it, things like the Schengen zone haven't a chance. While I admit we're nowhere near leaving the EU, and foreign investment will almost certainly not take a hit, stating that a No vote will have no repercussions beyond continuing with our inefficient status quo is false.
So, if someone is aware of the current sutuation, they are informed enough to vote 'No', even if they do not even read the treaty.
If someone takes the time to inform themselves and understand the issues, they are informed enough to vote 'Yes' or 'No.0 -
Advertisement
-
the lisbon referendum is not 1 contract. it is the offer of two contracts, one if you vote yes, one if you vote no.
if you do not understand it, the equivilant of not signing a contract is to not vote at all. if you vote no, you are making a decision and putting your name to something you dont understand.
Incorrect, voting no is rejecting the treaty, refusing to sign a contract is rejecting the contract,
not voting in this treaty would be the equivellent of letting someone else sign a contract for you, possibly someone who knows even less then you0 -
Incorrect, voting no is rejecting the treaty, refusing to sign a contract is rejecting the contract,
not voting in this treaty would be the equivellent of letting someone else sign a contract for you, possibly someone who knows even less then you
Voting no on a treaty you don't "claim not to understand" is stupidity of the highest order and a complete copout. If you want to vote No say so and inform yourself.0 -
The french and dutch are 'allowed' (well not really, they've been denied the choice second time round!) to vote NO and we are not?That's ridiculous, a No vote will damage Ireland's credibility at the EU stage and we'll likely be excluded from future reforms that member states want to take on.
Guys...the Nice treaty referendum here resulted in the 'wrong' result so were told to vote again and vote differently (I voted yes both times btw!). The European Constitution referenda in France and the Netherlands resulted in the 'wrong' result and so they've just told them they're not going to ask them again. If the Lisbon treaty is so win-win for all of Europe then why not ask the french and dutch again?
There's something sinister in the recent developments if you ask me and I'm not comfortable with it. If you're not comfortable with it too, vote NO!0 -
It wasn't me! wrote: »The idea that if you don't understand the treaty you should just vote no is condescending bollocks, and nothing more. If you want to vote, understand the material. If you don't understand it, you're not in a position to make a decision one way or the other. Informed people should vote. Those who are not informed, should not.It wasn't me! wrote: »If you don't understand the material, you shouldn't vote. If you want to vote, you should make very sure you know the material to qualify yourself to add your voice to the decision which affects far more people than just you.
That's not how democracy works.to be able to vote, you have to be informed somehow
You could argue that we have a government that was elected largely due to voters who just vote for FF no matter what.
In the same way, the Yes side is going to have many voters who simply support their political party's stance on the issue, rather than really understanding what Lisbon is about.
Given the existence of the above type of voter, you could say the "If you don't know, then vote No" brigade is necessary to even the playing field.0 -
That's not how democracy works.
Hold on a minute there, I didn't say it was. I said that's how it should work, and there's no substantial reason why it can't.
To be able to vote effectively, ie. for what you really want, you have to be informed, there's no question of that.You could argue that we have a government that was elected largely due to voters who just vote for FF no matter what.
You could also argue, using that logic, that that's how any government in the world is elected. General elections are a completely different kettle of democracy. Loyalty, past record, etc; there's no comparison.In the same way, the Yes side is going to have many voters who simply support their political party's stance on the issue, rather than really understanding what Lisbon is about.
Given the existence of the above type of voter, you could say the "If you don't know, then vote No" brigade is necessary to even the playing field.
Ok, many people don't know what it's about; we're not saying this is a good thing. We'd rather they did know what it's about.
Are you seriously proposing that to "balance out" ignorance on one side, we deploy further ignorance on the other? Symmetry is hardly something we want in the case of ignorance.
You do realise that we then have two sides fighting, and they're not even sure why?
There's no playing field to be levelled here; it's not a team sport!
Our point is simple; if you do not know what the treaty is about, try to find out. Ideally, you should not vote for any other reason than the substance of the document. Of course there are external factors, we don't like them, but they are there and we should try to avoid them.
In summary: The less uninformed votes, the better.0 -
Advertisement
-
Heh, I agree with you. I just think there will be as many uninformed Yes votes as there are uninformed No votes, but you don't hear many people talking about the uninformed Yes side.0
-
Judging by the result, people didn't vote differently; more people voted 'No' to Nice II than Nice I. It could be argued that Nice II was a more accurate reflection of public opinion because far more people voted.Guys...the Nice treaty referendum here resulted in the 'wrong' result so were told to vote again and vote differently (I voted yes both times btw!).
You'll have to ask the French and Dutch governments about that.If the Lisbon treaty is so win-win for all of Europe then why not ask the french and dutch again?
Actually, I think I'll stick to voting on the content of the treaty itself; thanks all the same.There's something sinister in the recent developments if you ask me and I'm not comfortable with it. If you're not comfortable with it too, vote NO!0 -
Well, I like to dig a little deeper and not accept things at face value anymore (cynicism comes with age I find, sad but true!). I can't ask the dutch and french governments why they have opted not to put the same (previously rejected) question to their people and to push it through their parliaments despite the treaty being 90% the same. Seeing as neither the actual french or dutch public can properly debate the issue this time I will do my european duty and vote NO. Lots of campaigns around Europe are demanding their referendum which they are being denied...let's help our european cousins out and vote NO to force a rethink on the whole thing. The public haven't been consulted on the european project as a whole. Why not debate where we are going before forging ahead.You'll have to ask the French and Dutch governments about that.0 -
Why do you assume that the French and Dutch people want you to vote 'No'? Why do you assume that they are not happy to let their parliaments ratify the treaty?Seeing as neither the actual french or dutch public can properly debate the issue this time I will do my european duty and vote NO.
The only campaigns/demonstrations I have seen have involved handfuls of people. I don't think the people of the EU are as bothered about this treaty as the 'No' side would have us believe.Lots of campaigns around Europe are demanding their referendum which they are being denied...
Yes they have, albeit indirectly. The treaty was negotiated by our elected representatives who (in my opinion) did a pretty good job in looking out for the interests of the Irish public.The public haven't been consulted on the european project as a whole.0 -
The french and dutch are 'allowed' (well not really, they've been denied the choice second time round!) to vote NO and we are not?
Guys...the Nice treaty referendum here resulted in the 'wrong' result so were told to vote again and vote differently (I voted yes both times btw!). The European Constitution referenda in France and the Netherlands resulted in the 'wrong' result and so they've just told them they're not going to ask them again. If the Lisbon treaty is so win-win for all of Europe then why not ask the french and dutch again?
There's something sinister in the recent developments if you ask me and I'm not comfortable with it. If you're not comfortable with it too, vote NO!
Because governments are elected to deal with complex legal documents like this. Every 5 years, we choose who to put forward to act in our interests, because having a plebiscite on every proposal would be highly inefficient. We don't vote on the budget, because we elect a government to handle it for us based on their simple, voter friendly manifestos. We elected 160 Pro-Europe TDs. Every country in Europe elected pro-European representatives.These governments construed that as a mandate to act on their behalf to sign a Pro-European document, that they themselves negotiated(that's right, negotiated by member states, like us, not invisible members of international Jewry). We're holding this referendum simply because of a clause in our constitution. It was useful for straight-forward issues like abortion and divorce, but the very fact that this boring document has created a sh¡tstorm with irrelevant issues like euthanasia cropping up justifies the approach of the other governments.
Also, Lisbon was defeated in France and the Netherlands with many exit polls showing the trend towards a federal Europe with an official flag and anthem as a key concern, so they removed them. In Ireland, our key issues, from yesterdays tns mrbi pol, include "I don't know what it is", "I don't like being told what to do", and "I want to support the farmers", despite the fact that the IFA came out in favour of Lisbon. The No campaign is made up of splinter groups on the far left and far right, from the communist party to a supplier of American war technology-what do you think should be added to swing everyone over to Yes?0 -
Fair enough guys, you're both of the opinion that we elect representatives whom we delegate certain tasks to and we let them get on with it and it's a valid point. I just don't have the same faith in them as you.
I remain unconvinced we actually need another treaty at all and that we can't remain as we are. I believe the pace of change and expanion within the EU has been too rapid of late and I'd like to hold back for a few years before proceeding apace.0 -
-
Hi there, I didnt get around to responding to your post until now.This is a valid point of view, but let me offer another. The status quo in the EU has been stability created by a gradual closer bonding of the member states. We negotiate, agree, and implement new treaties. If Lisbon falls that will be a divergence from the status quo. We will not be able to implement the reforms that the members states jointly agreed were necessary. The process that began decades ago will be temporarily stalled.
Well I dont think you can get around the fact that the staus quo is now, which is without a Lisbon Treaty, that is the status quo. That is the status quo by definition. To state that "If Lisbon falls that will be a divergence from the status quo" is incorrect. However, I do understand the point you are making that the EU has been based on the coming together of negotiated treaties and stuctures and daily 'working together', etc, and that failed treaties is not the trend, but treaties have failed in the past.
To state that the member states jointly agreed on the treaty is incorrect. It cant by procedure be agreed by Ireland unless we vote Yes. It cant be agreed by the EU unless ALL countries vote Yes. The Lisbon Treaty is therefore NOT AGREED yet.
It is true to state that it has been a long time in the making. But that is not a reason for voting it through hastily if it has faults. Legislation, treaties, agreements, and changes to the constitution should never be voted in quickly and in a hurry just because they have been ages in the making and becuase those offering it to us state it is the finished article and there is no other option and by not agreeing to it, it will be bad for Ireland, etc, etc.
We as a nation have a RIGHT to hold this up, if the majority want to do so. A right recognised by the EU. By the current stuctures of the EU. We cannot be punished or ostracised for using that right.
We have a RIGHT to request improvements to the treaty and the EU in general (implicitly or otherwise), if the majority want to do so through a No vote.
It is arrogant and incorrect for our government and ANY EU-nation government to state that there will be nothing better on the table. A "take it or else" option is not an option at all.
If we vote NO, we will be expressly giving our government and representatives the instructions and mandate to go and get a better deal for Ireland, for the EU small nations and for the EU as a whole.
And voting No will keep the status quo. Some may perceive that as stalling, but if it did take 8 years to allow us to vote on it, then who are the stallers? Not the Irish people.
Vote wisely ....
Redspider0 -
How do you propose to communicate this "instruction" to our government? How do you propose to distinguish this "message" from all the grumblers, anti-EUers, anti-war, socialist, anti-FFer's and their messages?If we vote NO, we will be expressly giving our government and representatives the instructions and mandate to go and get a better deal for Ireland, for the EU small nations and for the EU as a whole.
How do you know that the Government won't interpret a "No" vote as, "We don't give a **** about the rest of Europe, we want to get the best deal humanly possible and f*ck everyone else"?0 -
The government have nobody but themselves to blame for leaving the debate on Lisbon to so late in the day though Seamus. FF were too busy trying to prop Ahern up when it was clear to all and sundry he was a lost cause and by the time he finally resigned (rather than being pushed out last year when it should have happened) it was too late to get into a national debate about Lisbon. They took it for granted that the dopey electorate who repeatedly vote them in (despite their leader and our former Taoiseach being in front of a tribunal investigating CORRUPTION) would simply vote YES like lemmings because of 10,000 posters saying "vote tes". To be honest, the political elite across Europe aren't stupid-they know about all our seedy problems in Dublin Castle and they'll lay the blame for a NO vote squarely at FF I believe. Many European citizens wanted a proper europe wide debate on Lisbon and it never happened.How do you propose to communicate this "instruction" to our government? How do you propose to distinguish this "message" from all the grumblers, anti-EUers, anti-war, socialist, anti-FFer's and their messages?
How do you know that the Government won't interpret a "No" vote as, "We don't give a **** about the rest of Europe, we want to get the best deal humanly possible and f*ck everyone else"?0 -
Advertisement
-
For now. And for better or for worse.And voting No will keep the status quo.
If the treaty is an improvement (which I believe it is), the status quo is the worse option. Plus, the treaty makes it clear where we go from here. Change is a given; in the event of a rejection, it's not at all clear what the future changes will be.
I hear a lot of talk of negotiating a better deal, but I haven't heard very many realistic suggestions about what can be improved.0 -
If we vote NO, we will be expressly giving our government and representatives the instructions and mandate to go and get a better deal for Ireland, for the EU small nations and for the EU as a whole.
So, go on, out with it. What's in this magical "better deal"? Explain also why the other member states would be willing to go along with it.And voting No will keep the status quo.
It will preserve the legal status quo. That's not the same as the perceived status quo (which may or may not be changed depending on your perception/understanding of the Nice Treaty).
Anyone who is voting no because they don't know enough about the treaty will be trying to preserve what they perceive to be the status quo, not the legal status quo, since they don't know what the legal status quo entails.Some may perceive that as stalling, but if it did take 8 years to allow us to vote on it, then who are the stallers? Not the Irish people.
Do you think the EU collectively sat on its ass for 8 years? It toook 8 years of work to create this treaty.0 -
Absolutely, and I'm yet to find a "Yes" voter who thinks that FF did all they could. Most people seem to agree that the Government made the exact same mistake that they did with Nice and assumed that so long as they gave it the thumbs up, no-one would disagree.The government have nobody but themselves to blame for leaving the debate on Lisbon to so late in the day though Seamus.
The problem is that many people are thinking that if they vote "No", then the government will use their psychic mind powers to hear and fix their niche grievance. Then when that grievance is fixed, the Lisbon treaty will be magically ratified without another referendum.
The fact is that if you're voting no, purely to annoy the Government, then you're cutting your nose off to spite your face. It's like rejecting a new contract from your employer because you're upset at the quality of food in the canteen.0 -
I disagree. The status quo is the present, current, existing state of affairs. Whether Lisbon is ratified or not, the status quo will change.Well I dont think you can get around the fact that the staus quo is now, which is without a Lisbon Treaty, that is the status quo. That is the status quo by definition.
The text of the treaty was agreed upon by the 27 states. While the treaty has yet to be ratified, its content has been agreed.To state that the member states jointly agreed on the treaty is incorrect. It cant by procedure be agreed by Ireland unless we vote Yes.
What are these wonderful improvements that I keep hearing so much about?We have a RIGHT to request improvements to the treaty...0 -
Here is the text of Gilmores ad today.Yes gets you...
Security for Ireland’s future and economic wellbeing.
Irish tax rates continue to be set in Ireland.
Ireland will have the same representation in the Commission as Germany.
Ireland will have equality in EU decisions, with no loss of power.
Effective action on climate change and its security risks.
Ireland’s military neutrality, as well as Malta, Austria, Cyprus, Finland
and Sweden, remains unchanged.
Foreign investment into Ireland will continue to be secure.
New commitment to full employment, social market economy, fair trade,
humanitarian aid, solidarity with developing countries, and eradication of
poverty, social exclusion and discrimination.
Member States and MEPs make EU laws – not the Commission.
Greater role for TDs and MEPs in making and monitoring of EU decisions.
Ireland is free to choose its own energy sources.
Priority for energy security, renewables, sustainable development.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights becomes binding and includes the
right to equal treatment in the workplace
New right to personal data protection.
Ban on sexual exploitation of women and children.
Effective action on international crime, drugs and trafficking of women
and children.
The creation of a new Volunteer Humanitarian Aid Corps, open to young
Europeans.
Discrimination on grounds of disability prohibited.
European wide ban on the death penalty and torture.
Cloning of human beings banned throughout Europe.
Promotion of healthy and safe Irish working conditions.
Respect for Irish cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion, underpinned.
Automatic help for Irish holiday makers abroad (where there is no Irish
Embassy).
Faster funding and response for humanitarian disasters.
New incentives for education, culture, sport, tourism and public health.
New aim to combat all kinds of domestic violence.
Guaranteed assistance in case of humanitarian crisis or terrorist attack.
Europe continues to be neutral on public versus private ownership.
New safeguards provided for Member State public services.
For convenience sake I have made a second version which removes everything we already have and will keep in the event of a no vote, such as the ban on torture and death penalty and the ban on discrimination against people with disabilities.Yes gets you...
Security for Ireland’s future and economic wellbeing.
Irish tax rates continue to be set in Ireland.
Ireland will have the same representation in the Commission as Germany.
Ireland will have equality in EU decisions, with no loss of power.
Effective action on climate change and its security risks.
Ireland’s military neutrality, as well as Malta, Austria, Cyprus, Finland
and Sweden, remains unchanged.
Foreign investment into Ireland will continue to be secure.
New commitment to full employment, social market economy, fair trade,
humanitarian aid, solidarity with developing countries, and eradication of
poverty, social exclusion and discrimination.
Member States and MEPs make EU laws – not the Commission.
Greater role for TDs and MEPs in making and monitoring of EU decisions.
Ireland is free to choose its own energy sources.
Priority for energy security, renewables, sustainable development.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights becomes binding and includes the
right to equal treatment in the workplace
New right to personal data protection.
Ban on sexual exploitation of women and children.
Effective action on international crime, drugs and trafficking of women
and children.
The creation of a new Volunteer Humanitarian Aid Corps, open to young
Europeans.
Discrimination on grounds of disability prohibited.
European wide ban on the death penalty and torture.
Cloning of human beings banned throughout Europe.
Promotion of healthy and safe Irish working conditions.
Respect for Irish cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion, underpinned.
Automatic help for Irish holiday makers abroad (where there is no Irish
Embassy).
Faster funding and response for humanitarian disasters.
New incentives for education, culture, sport, tourism and public health.
New aim to combat all kinds of domestic violence.
Guaranteed assistance in case of humanitarian crisis or terrorist attack.
Europe continues to be neutral on public versus private ownership.
New safeguards provided for Member State public services.
And removed anything which is simply wishy washy vague assurances and/or commitmentsYes gets you...
Security for Ireland’s future and economic wellbeing.
Irish tax rates continue to be set in Ireland.
Ireland will have the same representation in the Commission as Germany.
Ireland will have equality in EU decisions, with no loss of power.
Effective action on climate change and its security risks.
Ireland’s military neutrality, as well as Malta, Austria, Cyprus, Finland
and Sweden, remains unchanged.
Foreign investment into Ireland will continue to be secure.
New commitment to full employment, social market economy, fair trade,
humanitarian aid, solidarity with developing countries, and eradication of
poverty, social exclusion and discrimination.
Member States and MEPs make EU laws – not the Commission.
Greater role for TDs and MEPs in making and monitoring of EU decisions.
Ireland is free to choose its own energy sources.
Priority for energy security, renewables, sustainable development.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights becomes binding and includes the
right to equal treatment in the workplace
New right to personal data protection.
Ban on sexual exploitation of women and children.
Effective action on international crime, drugs and trafficking of women
and children.
The creation of a new Volunteer Humanitarian Aid Corps, open to young
Europeans.
Discrimination on grounds of disability prohibited.
European wide ban on the death penalty and torture.
Cloning of human beings banned throughout Europe.
Promotion of healthy and safe Irish working conditions.
Respect for Irish cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion, underpinned.
Automatic help for Irish holiday makers abroad (where there is no Irish
Embassy).
Faster funding and response for humanitarian disasters.
New incentives for education, culture, sport, tourism and public health.
New aim to combat all kinds of domestic violence.
Guaranteed assistance in case of humanitarian crisis or terrorist attack.
Europe continues to be neutral on public versus private ownership.
New safeguards provided for Member State public services.
Not a whole lot in there to be enthused about. Sure the "aims" and "commitments" to curb domestic violence, achieve 0% unemployment and promote effective action on crime are nice and all, but they are just words, and we all know the ration of words versus actions with politicians.
When you remove all the rubbish, and the stuff we will keep in the event of this going through, there is very little reason why we could not change what needs to be changed with the EU in smaller more manageable parts.0 -
Here is the text of Gilmores ad today.
For convenience sake I have made a second version which removes everything we already have and will keep in the event of a no vote, such as the ban on torture and death penalty and the ban on discrimination against people with disabilities.
Fair enough, although since the NO campaign have put forward negatives such as "EU law becomes superior to Irish law" which was in place since 1973, it's only fair to allow the YES campaign to put forward positives which were also already in place.
Disagree that these are just vague assurances. For example the articles on climate change would prevent the EU from pursuing a course similar to that of the US in the future. That is a real change. Ditto for most of the others.And removed anything which is simply wishy washy vague assurances and/or commitments
We also know that there is never action without words. Voting against these items will delay or entirely prevent the day when the EU gets to do anything positive about them. If you agree that the items on Gilmore's list are positives you should vote YES to Lisbon to accelerate the time when they become realities.Not a whole lot in there to be enthused about. Sure the "aims" and "commitments" to curb domestic violence, achieve 0% unemployment and promote effective action on crime are nice and all, but they are just words, and we all know the ration of words versus actions with politicians.When you remove all the rubbish, and the stuff we will keep in the event of this going through, there is very little reason why we could not change what needs to be changed with the EU in smaller more manageable parts.
How about 10 Lisbon referenda instead of one? No thanks!0 -
Most of the stuff would not need a referendum. Why is all this stuff, which I would be happy to see happen (action on climate change, ban on cloning etc) mixed into this treaty?
The main problem that people have with the treaty is what exactly are the implications for our sovereignty. We hear assurances, counter-claims, shouting matches. I tried to read the text. Its very difficult to get a clear picture from it what the ramifications down the line will be. How much power are we giving up? We are a very small fish in a big pond which is getting bigger... The yes campaign has simply failed to answer those questions. I really do not like some of the people on the no "campaign", and to be honest I don't give any credibility to most of them.
A simplified, clear version of this treaty was rejected a few years ago. Its back, its much the same, and it is being shoved down our throats by the incumbents, and some foreign politicians also. Not happy about the way we have been treated, not happy that the treaty is clear enough, not happy with the wide range of things addressed in the treaty. Strip out all the things, as I have done, and we can have a proper campaign and debate. Remove the good - but ultimately irrelevant and unnecessary - stuff about human rights, policing etc, and let us decide on the part that really puts the ****s up people... the loss of power.0 -
I don't believe we are giving up much power, if any at all. To take just three examples; under Lisbon:The main problem that people have with the treaty is what exactly are the implications for our sovereignty.
...
How much power are we giving up?
...
...let us decide on the part that really puts the ****s up people... the loss of power.- All our key vetoes will remain in place (e.g. in matters relating to direct taxation and defence).
- The European Parliament (and hence our MEP's) will have far more influence.
- Absolute equality is guaranteed at the commission, i.e. every nation has exactly one commissioner for 10 out of every 15 years.
I really don't think you can just dismiss these elements so easily and deem them insignificant. What you consider to be significant? What changes would you make if it were up to you?Remove the good - but ultimately irrelevant and unnecessary - stuff about human rights, policing etc...0 -
I don't believe we are giving up much power, if any at all. To take just three examples; under Lisbon:
- All our key vetoes will remain in place (e.g. in matters relating to direct taxation and defence).
- The European Parliament (and hence our MEP's) will have far more influence.
- Absolute equality is guaranteed at the commission, i.e. every nation has exactly one commissioner for 10 out of every 15 years.
What I am trying to say is many of the items (worthy or otherwise), do NOT require a referendum to change the Irish constitution.
Why have they made a bloated, confusing amended treaty, covering multiple areas, confusing people as to what the treaty is and is not?
I dont think many people would have a problem with much of the proposals in the treaty, but when someone opposes the treaty due to the requirement to change our constitution, then all the good stuff is thrown in their face... "Oh so you dont want to see europe tackle climate change, domestic abuse, crime etc"0 -
Advertisement
-
It wasn't me! wrote: »I disagree. You don't vote no based on the notion that you're not sure what would happen if you voted yes. You shouldn't make a decisive judgement either way if you don't understand the subject, because it affects others. If you don't understand the material, you shouldn't vote. If you want to vote, you should make very sure you know the material to qualify yourself to add your voice to the decision which affects far more people than just you.
Who have an equal right to vote. Again defining informed is the problem with this text. Are you informed if like some here get lectures that explain it simply to you?... what if they have an agenda or even misread the complicated text themself? Only way is to read itself any YES it is in english in black and white but as proven by the different sides it is very open to debate what each part specifically means.
Oh and to the O.P always read and understand something you agree to and if you cant you dont do nothing and let someone else decide for you you say no i'm not accepting this it's too open to manipulation!0
Advertisement