What message were you trying to send? [Not "why did you vote No?"]

cornbb

What message were you trying to send to the EU?

The no campaigners claimed that rejecting the treaty would enable us to send the government back to the negotiating table with "a clear message that we want a better deal for Ireland".

My question is, what is the clear message? How do you propose we get a better deal?

Edit: thread title edited to reflect the question I'm asking, not "why did you vote no?", which is not the question I asked.

RE*AC*TOR

That's not the reason I voted no. I don't propose we "get a better deal". I don't want to send any message to Europe.

bill_ashmount

cornbb wrote: »

What message were you trying to send to the EU?

People were simply saying they didn't agree with the treaty and decided not to ratify it.

Why do the people who voted Yes have such difficulty understanding the basic concept of saying No to something.

TelePaul

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Why do the people who voted Yes have such difficulty understanding the basic concepts of saying No to something.

There isn't a problem with the basic concept of saying no....but what was rejected was hardly a basic concept. That's the problem.

O'Morris

cornbb wrote: »

What message were you trying to send to the EU?

The no campaigners claimed that rejecting the treaty would enable us to send the government back to the negotiating table with "a clear message that we want a better deal for Ireland".

My question is, what is the clear message? How do you propose we get a better deal?

The message I hoped we sent to the EU is that we don't want to sacrifice any more of our independence and we don't want the EU to turn into a superstate.

Thus far and no further

DishonestPikey

bill_ashmount wrote: »

People were simply saying they didn't agree with the treaty and decided not to ratify it.

Yes. But what exactly didn't you agree with? And please refer to items which are actually in the treaty.

dresden8

I'll turn that around.

For the yes voters what were you agreeing to? Which parts did you not agree with but were prepared to overlook for the benefits involved from the other provisions?

ircoha

cornbb wrote: »

What message were you trying to send to the EU?

The no campaigners claimed that rejecting the treaty would enable us to send the government back to the negotiating table with "a clear message that we want a better deal for Ireland".

My question is, what is the clear message? How do you propose we get a better deal?

The unbridled arrogance imbedded in the above is breathtaking, but not surprising.


If the result is declared a No, the question to be asked is how did the vast majority of the elected politicians fail to convince intelligent people that it was worth voting for.

The Yes side by and large preached to the electorate in a patronizing and off-hand way. There was not an ounce of humility in the whole campaign.

Just look at the posters, particularly from the younger polititians who were not even born when we joined the EEC telling us that Europe is good for us.





Arguments such as, we spent the last 7 years putting it together etc just dont wash.

bill_ashmount

TelePaul wrote: »

but what was rejected was hardly a basic concept. That's the problem.

What is this supposed to mean?

TelePaul

bill_ashmount wrote: »

What is this supposed to mean?

Well in response to your earlier comment, I'd care alot less if the implications of the issue being discussed weren't so far-reaching.

widget64

cornbb wrote: »

What message were you trying to send to the EU?

The no campaigners claimed that rejecting the treaty would enable us to send the government back to the negotiating table with "a clear message that we want a better deal for Ireland".

My question is, what is the clear message? How do you propose we get a better deal?

I voted NO. I wasnt trying to send a "clear message" to the EU. Their are parts to the treaty i dont like and dont agree with for example if it was passed then the EU can make "amendments" to the treaty without Ireland having to vote. The question i asked and no one could answer was exactly how far can the changes go? considering we would loose half of our voting power.

TelePaul

ircoha wrote: »

Just look at the posters, particularly from the younger polititians who were not even born when we joined the EEC telling us that Europe is good for us.

By contrast, look at Sinn Féins posters. While you mightn't agree with the as-yet unqualified opinion of younger politicians, can you really condone the deploying of horribly inaccurate information passed off as fact by certain opposition groups?

thecaptain

cornbb wrote: »

What message were you trying to send to the EU?

The no campaigners claimed that rejecting the treaty would enable us to send the government back to the negotiating table with "a clear message that we want a better deal for Ireland".

My question is, what is the clear message? How do you propose we get a better deal?

The clear message is, we do not want to be sold out furtherby our "public representatives".

End all european agreements.

A better deal?????????????????????? How about no deal at all.

In case you have not notied the people have always been against Europe. Do you know any Finnish people, ask them about Europe, ask the French.

We have all been sold out by Globalist leaders, hence the ratifications without public input. When the people have a say, they vote against integration.

themont85

So far only one person has said why they actually voted No and fair enough. Apart from that people have talked about been patronized. I think its the right question, last week in the Times in their poll they broke it down as to why people voted No. Most of the reasons were irrelevant to the treaty. I think the OP question is a good one but maybe out of place a bit. Most of the people who voted no here have informed decisions as to why they did so, fair enough. But the sections of the public, disconnected from discussions such as these have questions to answer as to why they voted no.

seamus

widget64 wrote: »

Their are parts to the treaty i dont like and dont agree with for example if it was passed then the EU can make "amendments" to the treaty without Ireland having to vote.

These amendments could only be made if the people we vote in to make such decisions for us, i.e. our government, agreed with them.

considering we would loose half of our voting power.

In what respect? Where in the treaty were we to lose this power?

For the yes voters what were you agreeing to? Which parts did you not agree with but were prepared to overlook for the benefits involved from the other provisions?

The entire thing I agreed with. I saw absolutely nothing in the treaty which I had any objection to.

jackal

I voted no because I dont agree with the fact that we were told to vote cos we say you should, and if you dont... the bunny gets it.

I voted no because I dont sign contracts I dont understand. I especially dont sign contracts I dont understand with people threatening me.

I voted no because no means no change, and I did not see any compelling reasons for me as a citizen to change things. The proposed changes may suit the EU politicians, but we are being asked to change our constitution, which means its not simply a mere technicality which is of no concern.

I voted no because the treaty was rejected before, changed slightly and presented to us with basically a new sticker over the old treaty with vigourous smiles and nodding from its creators. Thats very annoying, we are not thick.

I voted no because the treaty is a complete mish mash of unrelated things which confused the issues to the point that neither side could irrefutably say anything, because no one was 100% sure of their ground.

I would consider myself pro-european.

So i would ask the proponents of the yes vote for the treaty, to come back again soon, but this time...

Present the part of the treaty which requires the constitutional change clearly, consicely, and impartially, and dont treat the electorate like sheep. Put forward a more convincing argument than "Because we say so" I didnt like it whem my parents gave that reason for doing something, and I dont like it when my government and their opponents do it.

Oh and Sinn Fein/Libertas/Coir... my no vote was absolutely nothing to do with any of the bull**** you put forward.

Rb

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others?

cornbb

ircoha wrote: »

The unbridled arrogance imbedded in the above is breathtaking, but not surprising.

Its not arrogance, its a simple question. I'll accept the result of the vote, I just don't know if I can comprehend it.

If the result is declared a No, the question to be asked is how did the vast majority of the elected politicians fail to convince intelligent people that it was worth voting for.

The onus was not on the politicians to convince anyone either way, the onus was on the voters to inform themselves. It sounds to me like you had a "No" in your head right from the top.

The Yes side by and large preached to the electorate in a patronizing and off-hand way. There was not an ounce of humility in the whole campaign.

Voting because someone felt patronised or browbeaten and felt a backlash is required is bad. Voting because you were duped into believing lies is worse. Did you vote based on any of the issues contained within the treaty? If so, you might understand that a protest vote has consequences.

MSporty

Its called democracy folks, we were given the choice of Yes or No. So we are all entitled to choose either without being questioned about it. It is a secret ballot afterall

suimhneas

casue im a member of the fishing community and Europe has made our lives impossible, could not see one benifit for me to vote yes, would be like selling my community down the river, and there has been enough of that done already. No means NO

biko

I think that just because you put a few cherries on top of a turd doesn't make it better.

My message to EU is "No, this is not good enough and I do not agree with you".

caoimhemo

I voted NO and I am very happy that the NO vote seems to have won
Why should we be bullied by politicians into changing our constitution to allow the EU to have more power over our country
We were luckily allowed to vote and a lot of European people are thankful to us as they did not have the opportunity to have a say in their Country
I think its a great day to be Irish

cornbb

suimhneas wrote: »

casue im a member of the fishing community and Europe has made our lives impossible, could not see one benifit for me to vote yes, would be like selling my community down the river, and there has been enough of that done already. No means NO

I can at least respect that. If someone has been tangibly hard-done by by the EU then a No vote is fair enough.

Voting no because "I don't sign a contract I don't understand" is bullsh*t. Ticking "No" is signing a contract too, people! Wait and see.

Let me rephrase the question I put in my first post: As someone who voted No, will you now shoulder the responsibility of dealing with the consequences of the treaty result, and if so what do you intend to do? What message do you intend to send?

cornbb

biko wrote: »

My message to EU is "No, this is not good enough and I do not agree with you".

You haven't even come close to answering my initial question. How do you propose we get a better deal?

EDIT: same question for whitser below

whitser

its quite clear what message was sent to europe. that ireland isnt a land full of sheep that will swallow anthing the eu hands us. we dont need people in brussells telling us how to run our affairs. yes ireland has done well out of europe but that doesnt mean we have to prostitute our soverignty and our ability to do what we want in our intersts. the fact that europe was willing to sell irish farmers down the river shows how little regard they have for us. ireland meens nothing to the big players as far as policy is concerened.

TelePaul

cornbb wrote: »

You haven't even come close to answering my initial question. How do you propose we get a better deal?

EDIT: same question for whitser below

I think the 'No' camp - those who are interested in some type of re-negotiation - have committed the classic mistake of cutting off their communal nose to to spite their communal face.

TelePaul

whitser wrote: »

its quite clear what message was sent to europe. that ireland isnt a land full of sheep that will swallow anthing the eu hands us. we dont need people in brussells telling us how to run our affairs. yes ireland has done well out of europe but that doesnt mean we have to prostitute our soverignty and our ability to do what we want in our intersts. the fact that europe was willing to sell irish farmers down the river shows how little regard they have for us. ireland meens nothing to the big players as far as policy is concerened.

If that really was your message, it really wasn't clear at all.

widget64

seamus wrote: »

These amendments could only be made if the people we vote in to make such decisions for us, i.e. our government, agreed with them.
In what respect? Where in the treaty were we to lose this power?

The entire thing I agreed with. I saw absolutely nothing in the treaty which I had any objection to.

Ireland’s voting weight would be reduced from 2% at present to 0.8%, while Germany’s would increase from 8% to 17%.

In my view the government has lost the respect of the people. I wouldnt trust the government to make all the decisions. My brother met Brian Lenihan during the week and asked was he still taking the pay rise and he said he couldnt answer thats one for the government. What the hell is he part off?

caoimhemo

TelePaul wrote: »

I think the 'No' camp - those who are interested in some type of re-negotiation - have committed the classic mistake of cutting off their communal nose to to spite their communal face.

Why?
Are they going to ban us from Europe now or tell all Europeans working in Ireland to come home and they will create jobs for them in their own countries
We have done a lot for Europe also, its not a one way street

whitser

cornbb wrote: »

You haven't even come close to answering my initial question. How do you propose we get a better deal?

EDIT: same question for whitser below

thats for the politicans to do. but at least now they know that our yes vote is garaunteed and they better come back with something better. as for the eu. if they have to threaten states with punishments for not towing the line then maybe its time to pull out. europe is about the people of europe not the poitical elite and super rich. france and holland both rejected this treaty. we elect politicians we tell them what to do not the other way around.

eigrod

jackal wrote: »

I voted no because I dont agree with the fact that we were told to vote cos we say you should, and if you dont... the bunny gets it.

I voted no because I dont sign contracts I dont understand. I especially dont sign contracts I dont understand with people threatening me.

I voted no because no means no change, and I did not see any compelling reasons for me as a citizen to change things. The proposed changes may suit the EU politicians, but we are being asked to change our constitution, which means its not simply a mere technicality which is of no concern.

I voted no because the treaty was rejected before, changed slightly and presented to us with basically a new sticker over the old treaty with vigourous smiles and nodding from its creators. Thats very annoying, we are not thick.

I voted no because the treaty is a complete mish mash of unrelated things which confused the issues to the point that neither side could irrefutably say anything, because no one was 100% sure of their ground.

I would consider myself pro-european.

So i would ask the proponents of the yes vote for the treaty, to come back again soon, but this time...

Present the part of the treaty which requires the constitutional change clearly, consicely, and impartially, and dont treat the electorate like sheep. Put forward a more convincing argument than "Because we say so" I didnt like it whem my parents gave that reason for doing something, and I dont like it when my government and their opponents do it.

Oh and Sinn Fein/Libertas/Coir... my no vote was absolutely nothing to do with any of the bull**** you put forward.

:applause:

+1

oh, and because I am extremely extremely suspicious of anything that Dick Roche is associated with, in a political sense might i add.

caoimhemo

whitser wrote: »

thats for the politicans to do. but at least now they know that our yes vote is garaunteed and they better come back with something better. as for the eu. if they have to threaten states with punishments for not towing the line then maybe its time to pull out. europe is about the people of europe not the poitical elite and super rich. france and holland both rejected this treaty. we elect politicians we tell them what to do not the other way around.

Completely agree with you

How Strange

ircoha wrote: »

The unbridled arrogance imbedded in the above is breathtaking, but not surprising.

I agree with this. I'm always voted Yes to treaties.

Why did I vote no? Because I feel that the idea of democracy is becoming more and more diluted in the new EU. We voted against Nice 1 for whatever a mulitude of reason, then the government and the EU said 'oh that doesn't count' and they came back with Nice 2 and told us to make the right decision this time. And we did as far as the EU were concerned.

Three years ago the French and Dutch voted down the prototype of this treaty. What happens? The treaty is rehashed in Lisbon and all the heads of state orchestrate it so that referendums aren't required to pass it. Poor Bertie couldn't get out of it so easily so it was down to Ireland who is probably representative of 1.5% of the EU's population to ratify a treaty that will change the face of the EU as we know it.

And the laugh is that the EU talks about a democratic deficit. What the bloody hell is the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty if not a sure indication that the deficit is increasing not decreasing.

I've also just read on ireland.com that the French Prime Minister said they'll just ignore the Irish result and go ahead anyway.

So democracy shemocracy really.

And we look disdainfully on American style democracy!

jackal

cornbb wrote: »

Voting no because "I don't sign a contract I don't understand" is bullsh*t. Ticking "No" is signing a contract too, people! Wait and see.

Ok, by saying its bull**** you have completely blown it out of the water with both well reasoned and incontrovertible evidence. Thanks for your input.

"Wait and see"... more veiled threats?

Jim_Are_Great

dresden8 wrote: »

For the yes voters what were you agreeing to? Which parts did you not agree with but were prepared to overlook for the benefits involved from the other provisions?

There are many things in there that persuaded me to vote yes. Tying up loose ends from Nice, such as the equal rotation of commissioners, is a big one. The citizens' initiative was, for me, a step in the right direction at least. I wasn't unconditionally in favour of every aspect of the treaty, but I also doubt that any "better deal" will be done if and when this amendment is rejected.

ircoha wrote: »

The Yes side by and large preached to the electorate in a patronizing and off-hand way. There was not an ounce of humility in the whole campaign.

It was a referendum on a constitutional amendment, not on the quality of any party's campaign.

ircoha wrote: »

If the result is declared a No, the question to be asked is how did the vast majority of the elected politicians fail to convince intelligent people that it was worth voting for.

Partly, perhaps, because they also had to deal with a great number of unintelligent ones.

ircoha wrote: »

Just look at the posters, particularly from the younger polititians who were not even born when we joined the EEC telling us that Europe is good for us

What? So to have an opinion on something you have to be alive contemporaneously?

ircoha wrote: »

Arguments such as, we spent the last 7 years putting it together etc just dont wash.

No, but there are a lot of other perfectly cogent arguments that do.

The "why did you vote no" question remains largely unanswered on this thread.

Zube

How Strange wrote: »

I've also just read on ireland.com that the French Prime Minister said they'll just ignore the Irish result and go ahead anyway.

Excellent.

cornbb

whitser wrote: »

thats for the politicans to do.

Its for the politicians who campaigned for a Yes vote to do. The same politicians who put years of toil and sweat into what was a good deal for Ireland (I have yet to see a suggestion in this thread of what a better deal would be, so don't try to suggest that the Lisbon treaty wasn't a great deal until you can clearly suggest how it could be better). The other politicians, the ones who suggested "lets get a better deal" never suggested what such a better deal might be, can just sit back and laugh at the rest of us now.

but at least now they know that our yes vote is garaunteed and they better come back with something better.

How exactly could it be better? I'm sick of repeating myself.

woodzyx

jackal wrote: »

I voted no because I dont sign contracts I dont understand.

My advice to you in this case would be to not to vote at all, because if you haven't got an understanding for one side of the contract then you cannot possibly have an understanding for the other... ie. the NO side.

cornbb

jackal wrote: »

Ok, by saying its bull**** you have completely blown it out of the water with both well reasoned and incontrovertible evidence. Thanks for your input.

"Wait and see"... more veiled threats?

How exactly could I, a lowly Irish citizen, be a threat? Nobody has threatened Ireland. They have matter-of-factly stated that a no vote would marginalise Ireland. That is an observation of an obvious fact, not a threat. If the aran islanders blocked a law of unequivocal importance to the rest of Ireland how do you think we would react? We would shun them and go ahead, leaving them in the cold. This is exactly what the EU will, and should, do.

molloyjh

widget64 wrote: »

I voted NO. I wasnt trying to send a "clear message" to the EU. Their are parts to the treaty i dont like and dont agree with for example if it was passed then the EU can make "amendments" to the treaty without Ireland having to vote. The question i asked and no one could answer was exactly how far can the changes go? considering we would loose half of our voting power.

This was answered at least several times in numerous threads. For a start the idea that the Treaty can be amended without our vote is nonsense. The Treaty could only be amended by ratification from the member states in accordance with the rules as stated in their constitution. So if the change wasn't going to change ou constitution the Dail and the Seanad would cast the vote. If it impacted the Constitution we would havea referendum on it. It is summarised quite well here (and I have posted this link on this same topic on numerous occasions):

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_gov.html

People who say that they have been on this forum and not been able to get clear answers obviously haven't been trying too hard as on nearly every page of every thread there is information and/or links to sources etc.

How Strange

jackal wrote: »

Oh and Sinn Fein/Libertas/Coir... my no vote was absolutely nothing to do with any of the bull**** you put forward.

+1
I don't align myself with any of these associations. I abhore SF and their scaremongering did nothing to persuade me on which way I would vote.
The only person that had any 'influence' (and I say this in the mildest, most diluted sense) was Patrica McKenna on Prime Time because her honesty and concise understanding points were refreshing among a sea of scaremongering (SF, Libertas et al) and patronising (every other political party).

bill_ashmount

How Strange wrote: »

I've also just read on ireland.com that the French Prime Minister said they'll just ignore the Irish result and go ahead anyway.

So democracy shemocracy really.

There was 2 differing opinions from the French: IMO it is dead.....

"The most important thing is that ratification should continue in other countries (if Ireland has voted "no") and I have good reasons to think that the process of ratification will continue," Mr Jouyet told LCI television.

"We would have to see with the Irish at the end of the ratification process how we could make it work and what legal arrangement we could come to."

His view of was at odds with comments by French Prime Minister Francois Fillon, who said yesterday:

"If the Irish people decide to reject the treaty of Lisbon, naturally, there will be no treaty of Lisbon."

whitser

first of all come back with a treaty that the ordinary man on the street can understand. look the pros and cons were put to the people and we said no. if the 3 biggest parties cant sell a deal to the people then its a bad deal. its quite clear that even ff,fg and labour voters went against this treaty. if they cant sell it to their own then something is rotten with it.

molloyjh

thecaptain wrote: »

The clear message is, we do not want to be sold out furtherby our "public representatives".

End all european agreements.

A better deal?????????????????????? How about no deal at all.

In case you have not notied the people have always been against Europe. Do you know any Finnish people, ask them about Europe, ask the French.

We have all been sold out by Globalist leaders, hence the ratifications without public input. When the people have a say, they vote against integration.

Holy moly I'm against Europe!? :eek:

Holy smokes we've been sold out by globalist leaders in the form of generous hand-outs, free trade and foreign investment that has been one of the driving facotrs of the Celtic Tiger!? :eek:

How dare they! :rolleyes:

eigrod

cornbb wrote: »

If the aran islanders blocked a law of unequivocal importance to the rest of Ireland how do you think we would react?

Did the people of the rest of the EU tell us that this was a "law of unequivocal importance" to them ? If they did, I must have missed it.

dats_right

I'm a little disappointed that the Irish people are set to reject the Lisbon Treaty, but that's the democratic will of the people so fair enough. Having said that I'm more than a little annoyed with those on the 'No' side who told blatant lies in an effort to scaremonger people on issues that had nothing to do with the treaty. And I'm equally annoyed with those people who claim to have voted no because "they didn't understand it", can these people not take some personal responsibility? Maybe, they could have got off their arses, tore themselves away from Coronation Street or some other equally important activity and read some of the literature. I mean it was bombarded at you from every angle, if these people were in school and told a teacher I don't understand after the teacher spent so much time to explain a subject, they would be sent packing off to the special class with all of the other special boys and girls! That mightn't be a very P.C. thing to say, but anybody, in my opinion, who voted no because they didn't understand it are either thick or incredibly lazy. Fair enough vote no because you are opposed on real issues, but voting no out of laziness or thickness that's another story!

whitser

some of the most intelligent judges around europe couldnt make head nor tales of the treaty,its designed to confuse.

ircoha

dats_right wrote: »

I'm a little disappointed that the Irish people are set to reject the Lisbon Treaty, but that's the democratic will of the people so fair enough. Having said that I'm more than a little annoyed with those on the 'No' side who told blatant lies in an effort to scaremonger people on issues that had nothing to do with the treaty. And I'm equally annoyed with those people who claim to have voted no because "they didn't understand it", can these people not take some personal responsibility? Maybe, they could have got off their arses, tore themselves away from Coronation Street or some other equally important activity and read some of the literature. I mean it was bombarded at you from every angle, if these people were in school and told a teacher I don't understand after the teacher spent so much time to explain a subject, they would be sent packing off to the special needs class because they were plain and simply thick! That mightn't be a very P.C. thing to say, but anybody, in my opinion, who voted no because they didn't understand it are either thick or incredibly lazy. Fair enough vote no because you are opposed on real issues, but voting no out of laziness or thickness that's another story!

Out of order: please edit this post:mad:

passive

widget64 wrote: »

Ireland’s voting weight would be reduced from 2% at present to 0.8%, while Germany’s would increase from 8% to 17%.

That's just completely and utterly not true though? Should details like that have affected your decision, maybe?


"Can you explain the new voting system in the Council of Ministers?

The standard system of voting in the Council of Ministers will be “Qualified majority voting” (QMV). It will be based on the principle of the double majority. Decisions in the Council of Ministers will need the support of 55% of Member States (currently 15 out of 27 EU countries) representing a minimum of 65% of the EU's population. To make it impossible for a very small number of the most populous Member States to prevent a decision from being adopted, a blocking minority must comprise at least four Member States; otherwise, the qualified majority will be deemed to have been reached even if the population criterion is not met.

The European Council agreed that the new system will take effect in 2014. In the first three years, until 2017, a Member State may request that an act be adopted in accordance with the qualified majority as defined in the current Treaty of Nice."

Spud83

I voted No because the rest of Europe’s citizens are not being allowed a vote on the treaty. Does this make me a bad person?

whitser

i voted no simply because if the eu is going to threaten states for not doing its bidding then something is rotten at its core. the eu was supposed to be co-operation between states not saying if you dont do what we ask then you'll be sorry and we'll go on with out you. the people rejected this trash cos its bad for ireland. as i said if the 3 biggest parties cant sell this to their people then something is defo rotten.