For those of you who voted yes...

Roxanne

....would you vote no if the referendum was put to us a second time after hearing the reaction of European politicians in the aftermath of our decision?

There will be calls in the EU to ensure that a few thousand Irish voters do not hold up half a billion European citizens who want this treaty. -Antonio Missiroli
With all respect for the Irish vote, we cannot allow the huge majority of Europe to be duped by a minority of a minority of a minority. -Axel Schafer

These were posted in another thread. Do these quotes not clearly show that these people have no respect for democracy. The clear disregard for the "minority" , which is what Ireland and many other smaller countries represent in the EU is worrying to say the least.
Would you reconsider your yes vote after hearing this? I know I would.

Since politicians didn't impact how I decided the first time around (I voted yes) if it was put to the Irish people again (and I don't think it should) I would vote yes again.

PrivateEye

Sarkozy etc. like democracy when people tick the right boxes :rolleyes:

Several of my friends who voted Yes (for the poster-reasons, "The economy" etc.- like many no voters, it wasn't so much down to the Treaty as being swayed by one poster/group...) were disgusted by Sarko and Merkel, and the rest of them. I think its disgraceful they are trying to undermine democracy.

We're about to see just how democratic the EU is :pac:

They expected to be 'praising democracy' and our maturity today, not scarring the bollocks out of us

Roxanne

Myth wrote: »

Since politicians didn't impact how I decided the first time around (I voted yes) if it was put to the Irish people again (and I don't think it should) I would vote yes again.

Yes and I did mean to add - if it was put to us again by the Irish government this is another reason for people to vote no regardless as its a clear sign of disrespect for our democratic right to vote and the outcome to be respected.

I see what you are saying about politicians not influencing your vote but at the same time I feel that the reaction from the big boys in Europe are showing them up for what they really are - arrogant elitists and using bully boy tactics - and sadly they are proving the likes of Libertas right in that regard.

themont85

Ye i would vote yes again if I had the chance because the treaty is a good deal for us. Are you suprised that the Europeans politicians are pissed of, they put 7 years into it. That treaty took them ages to flesh out, it wasn't like they put it together over night. Also as the Govt have said they got what they wanted in the treaty but yet we weren't satisfied.

They'd be especially be pissed of to have read a poll in the IT last week breaking down as to why they were no voters, a massive percentage irrelevant to the treaty. In fact I'm pissed of with our country right now, fair enough if you disagreed with the treaty for valid reasons but the moronic nature of some of the no people really gets on my nerves. We treat Europe with such disdain at times, I mean look at it from their POV. They've poured millions into Ireland to build us up, thought they had given our Govt a good deal and yet we can scupper their work. It may be our democracy at work but that doesn't mean they can't be pissed of.

PrivateEye

Two men and a dog voting Yes would have done them fine.

Theres no point having a say when there's a script before you to read from...I would truly hope the "Who the **** does this Sarkozy bloke think he is" feeling would be enough to encourage another No vote.

If he loves the Treaty so much, put it before the French.
Oh yeah...forgot that.

radioactiveman

PrivateEye wrote: »

If he loves the Treaty so much, put it before the French.
Oh yeah...forgot that.

Indeed. I could easily see France voting no to the treaty

Rb

PrivateEye wrote: »

If he loves the Treaty so much, put it before the French.
Oh yeah...forgot that.

DadaKopf

Here's a question I've been asking myself: if the Lisbon treaty really did create a European democracy (not the halfway house we have now), would people still reject it in a referendum because people would complain that it would replace the Irish democracy with 'democratic diktat' from Europe?

I think 'no' voters who were concerned about the democratic deficit would still reject it. I think that even if everyone got everything they were looking for, the 'no' side would still reject it. I think the 'no' side wants it both ways.

Scofflaw

Roxanne wrote: »

....would you vote no if the referendum was put to us a second time after hearing the reaction of European politicians in the aftermath of our decision?

There will be calls in the EU to ensure that a few thousand Irish voters do not hold up half a billion European citizens who want this treaty. -Antonio Missiroli
With all respect for the Irish vote, we cannot allow the huge majority of Europe to be duped by a minority of a minority of a minority. -Axel Schafer

These were posted in another thread. Do these quotes not clearly show that these people have no respect for democracy. The clear disregard for the "minority" , which is what Ireland and many other smaller countries represent in the EU is worrying to say the least.
Would you reconsider your yes vote after hearing this? I know I would.

Their reaction is quite predictable, and has no bearing on democracy. A group of states is not "a democracy". Acting by unanimity is not democracy either.

In both cases what you are claiming is "democracy" is simply the rules of the club.

If we genuinely are to talk about democracy, the question of why 100,000 votes should stop a polity of 500 million in its tracks is perfectly reasonable. The only answer given is because those are the current agreed rules - but that is not the same thing as democracy.

I'm sure people will say I am being all kinds of sophist here, but democracy is a system of majority rule, not unanimity. If we operate "democratically" on this, then Ireland as a state is outvoted.

If you prefer to state the point that allowing Ireland to be sidelined on foot of this result is both ethically questionable, and against the spirit of the EU, I would entirely agree. Claiming it's "undemocratic", however, is simply meaningless.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Roxanne

themont85 wrote: »

Ye i would vote yes again if I had the chance because the treaty is a good deal for us. Are you suprised that the Europeans politicians are pissed of, they put 7 years into it. That treaty took them ages to flesh out, it wasn't like they put it together over night. Also as the Govt have said they got what they wanted in the treaty but yet we weren't satisfied.

They'd be especially be pissed of to have read a poll in the IT last week breaking down as to why they were no voters, a massive percentage irrelevant to the treaty. In fact I'm pissed of with our country right now, fair enough if you disagreed with the treaty for valid reasons but the moronic nature of some of the no people really gets on my nerves.We treat Europe with such disdain at times , I mean look at it from their POV. They've poured millions into Ireland to build us up, thought they had given our Govt a good deal and yet we can scupper their work. It may be our democracy at work but that doesn't mean they can't be pissed of.

Yes of course they are going to be "pissed off" cos they didn't get their way but they still should respect the democratic decision of the Irish people and that is the bottom line. For them to come out and start saying they are going to attempt to ratify the treaty anyway and the tone of their comments does not show them in a good light and they are doing themselves no favours.

"We treat Europe with such disdain at times"

With all due respect I think you'll find its the EU who are treating us with disdain here.

Rb

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm sure people will say I am being all kinds of sophist here, but democracy is a system of majority rule, not unanimity. If we operate "democratically" on this, then Ireland as a state is outvoted.

Indeed, but would you agree that should it turn out that 26 ratify and we are the only ones who have rejected it, that'll it'll merely be a case of 26 governments vs 1 nation?

thecoolfreak

If we respect democracy so much then why do we feel that we should be in a position to tell the various other sovereign nations of the EU what to do with respect to ratifying the Treaty. If they so wish to continue the process then let them, the Treaty will never come into being anyway

Roxanne

Scofflaw wrote: »

Their reaction is quite predictable, and has no bearing on democracy. A group of states is not "a democracy". Acting by unanimity is not democracy either.

In both cases what you are claiming is "democracy" is simply the rules of the club.

If we genuinely are to talk about democracy, the question of why 100,000 votes should stop a polity of 500 million in its tracks is perfectly reasonable. The only answer given is because those are the current agreed rules - but that is not the same thing as democracy.

I'm sure people will say I am being all kinds of sophist here, but democracy is a system of majority rule, not unanimity. If we operate "democratically" on this, then Ireland as a state is outvoted.

If you prefer to state the point that allowing Ireland to be sidelined on foot of this result is both ethically questionable, and against the spirit of the EU, I would entirely agree. Claiming it's "undemocratic", however, is simply meaningless.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hi Scofflaw
To my mind it is quite simple - we, as a democratic state, voted no to this treaty. The EU should respect that.
They clearly don't so my question to people was, considering that it is now clear (if it wasn't clear before) that the EU do not respect the democratic will of the people - does this change your view of the Lisbon Treaty and whether we should becoming more and more tied into the EU.

Scofflaw

Rb wrote: »

Indeed, but would you agree that should it turn out that 26 ratify and we are the only ones who have rejected it, that'll it'll merely be a case of 26 governments vs 1 nation?

Not really. That's another simplistic summary that favours one view in its phrasing. It leaves out, in particular, the fact that the "1 nation" is not unanimous, but divided.

Similarly, neither of us can honestly claim that the rest of Europe supports their particular point of view, since it hasn't been put to the test. Your potted phrase implies that the "governments" of Europe are not supported by their "nations", which is obviously a nice thing to claim, but you don't have the evidence necessary to show that it's actually true.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ejmaztec

I'd still vote yes, but the other idiots would still vote no. There's still going to be the same mis-information kicking around, being spouted by groups with their own agenda. A referendum on such a complicated issue is ridiculous. We vote politicians in to make decisions, so why the feck can't they be allowed to get on with it. Abortion referendum? Fair enough, simple yes or no. The Lisbon Treaty? You'd probably need a Lisbon Treaty PHD to be able to work out what decision to make.

If you read the comments posted by the readers of various publications, some are thanking the Irish voters for stuffing up the treaty and others are saying that Ireland has bitten the hand that's been feeding it for thirty odd years. I think that in the UK Times, some Italian poster suggested that the Irish get back to the potato fields.

If the opportunity arises to vote again, anyone changing their mind and voting no because they feel insulted, is shooting themself in both feet. This would be even more ridiculous than the ones who voted no the first time round after listening to some rumour from a man in a pub.

Roxanne

thecoolfreak wrote: »

If we respect democracy so much then why do we feel that we should be in a position to tell the various other sovereign nations of the EU what to do with respect to ratifying the Treaty. If they so wish to continue the process then let them, the Treaty will never come into being anyway

Unfortunately, the people of those nations weren't given the opportunity to have their say. If they are given a chance to vote like we were, and the Treaty is passed, then yes we should respect the outcome of democracy, even though we might not like the outcome.

Tar.Aldarion

Rb wrote: »

Indeed, but would you agree that should it turn out that 26 ratify and we are the only ones who have rejected it, that'll it'll merely be a case of 26 governments vs 1 nation?

If people vote a system which does not give a referendum in in these countries, which they have, then it is 26 'nations' versus 'one'.

Scofflaw

Roxanne wrote: »

Hi Scofflaw
To my mind it is quite simple - we, as a democratic state, voted no to this treaty. The EU should respect that.

Respecting that No means, democratically, not forcing the Treaty of Lisbon on us, because we have rejected it on behalf of Ireland.

Claiming that this binds the other 26 nations of the EU to not going ahead with implementing the Treaty amongst themselves, however, is nothing to do with democracy - it's simply a legal point.

Roxanne wrote: »

They clearly don't so my question to people was, considering that it is now clear (if it wasn't clear before) that the EU do not respect the democratic will of the people - does this change your view of the Lisbon Treaty and whether we should becoming more and more tied into the EU.

Hmm. The problem is that you're not proving the EU doesn't respect democracy. You're showing that some people in Europe (and some in the EU) feel that the best solution to this kind of issue - where some states want to go ahead and others don't - is a two-speed Europe. That has always been the case - the French have favoured a "core Europe" for years.

You might claim that this is undemocratic on the basis that it doesn't respect what you thought your vote meant, but that is somewhat different. It was stated all along that the rest of the EU going ahead without Ireland was a possibility. It was dismissed as 'scaremongering', but it was a possibility, and it remains a possibility. If you voted with your eyes shut to that possibility, open them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Pride Fighter

Roxanne wrote: »

There will be calls in the EU to ensure that a few thousand Irish voters do not hold up half a billion European citizens who want this treaty. -Antonio Missiroli Benito Mussolini
With all respect for the Irish vote, we cannot allow the huge majority of Europe to be duped by a minority of a minority of a minority. -Axel Schafer Joseph Stalin

Fixed that for you.

thecoolfreak

Roxanne wrote: »

Unfortunately, the people of those nations weren't given the opportunity to have their say. If they are given a chance to vote like we were, and the Treaty is passed, then yes we should respect the outcome of democracy, even though we might not like the outcome.

Bu the people of those nations did have their say albeit through their democratically elected public representatives. This is how democracy works remember, the elcted government make decions on behalf of the people who elected them

dan719

thecoolfreak wrote: »

Bu the people of those nations did have their say albeit through their democratically elected public representatives. This is how democracy works remember, the elcted government make decions on behalf of the people who elected them

Yes that is the case but would the outcome be the same were all countries to hold a referendum, were the Lisbon Treaty to have been decided by the Dail it would have had a 96% percent yes vote yet was shot down by Irish voters. We can probably reasonably expect such a result in Spain-which is in a similarly dire economic state right now, and perhaps France and Holland again. The Brits seem to have become so eurosceptic, they wouldn't vote to allow a change in the colour of the E.U official pen and now how close are we to democracy?

Sarcozy and so on must remember not to hide behind democracy when they themselves choose to ignore it when it suits.

PrivateEye

The whole argument some made about Lisbon creating a more 'democratic' Europe has been tossed out the window by the manner in which EU leaders are trying to get around a democratic decision, as they did in 2005.

HOW can these people ever be accountable?
As I said before, a Yes vote on 2% turnout would be hailed a 'great day for democracy'

With the honourable exception of Eamon Gilmore, the Yes side are behaving like babies- Gay Mitchell the worst to date. Sarkozy should grow a pair and put this treaty before his own people, before calling us out.


Ray Crotty must be a name they hate in Brussels.

I think the European idea is crucial. We need a strong E.U. Saying that we need a democratic E.U, and I don't think that is going to come about with people like Sarkozy at the top of the table. Respect our vote (if you like the outcome or not) and go back to the drawing board.

Sure, some people will vote No if the EU offer them free money- but many of us asked ourselves which way to vote- and the current baby/rattle situation is only reaffirming in the mind the thought that voting 'Níl' was the right thing to do.

Scofflaw

The votes on ratification have nothing to do with whether the EU is democratic - they are a vote on the form of the EU. They do not take place through EU structures, but through national structures. The question of whether or not the EU is democratic is separate from the question of whether Europe is democratic.

If what was on offer in the Lisbon Treaty was a perfectly democratic EU (however you choose to define that) it wouldn't matter if it was imposed by dictators - it would still be a perfectly democratic EU.

Our government was created by force, first against the then imperial power, and then in an even bloodier civil war. That has no bearing on whether our form of government is democratic.


cordially,
Scofflaw

axer

DadaKopf wrote: »

I think the 'no' side wants it both ways.

Thats because there is no simple no side. People voted no for a huge number of reasons - not all for the same reason.

is_that_so

Therein lies the problem that Cowen has. It also highlights the difficulty, articulated elsewhere in this forum of presenting an immensely complex issue at a referendum and expecting people to have a clear unambiguous reason for choosing one side or the other.

Lazyfox

Rather than taking a dressing down from Sarkcozy et al on Thursday, Cowen should before Thursday announce publicly a recommendation for a referendum in every country in the EU. Let the 500 million vote and come back to us if the majority agree.

There is absolutely no reason for Ireland to have to apologise for the democratic answer of the people.

Next we will have the Euro spin doctors trying to tell why we voted No like the Nice result. I dare them to try that again. Thank God for Crotty.

limklad

themont85 wrote: »

Ye i would vote yes again if I had the chance because the treaty is a good deal for us. Are you suprised that the Europeans politicians are pissed of, they put 7 years into it. That treaty took them ages to flesh out, it wasn't like they put it together over night. Also as the Govt have said they got what they wanted in the treaty but yet we weren't satisfied.

They'd be especially be pissed of to have read a poll in the IT last week breaking down as to why they were no voters, a massive percentage irrelevant to the treaty. In fact I'm pissed of with our country right now, fair enough if you disagreed with the treaty for valid reasons but the moronic nature of some of the no people really gets on my nerves. We treat Europe with such disdain at times, I mean look at it from their POV. They've poured millions into Ireland to build us up, thought they had given our Govt a good deal and yet we can scupper their work. It may be our democracy at work but that doesn't mean they can't be pissed of.

There is a big difference between past benefits and future impacts of new treaties. EU gains a lot too. They held up Ireland as an example of benefits of Membership. It is a Huge reason why other countries wanted and Joined the EU. They wanted what Ireland got. “Economic success”, money leads us to give blindly away our governing rights
If someone bails you in the past and had an agreements with you and then in the future create another agreement and without explaining that new agreement to you and start hassling you about previous benefits, to get you to blindly sign a new agreement with amendments only, without you fully analysing it by fitting the pieces of the new amendments to see what is the new agreement look like. You would be very foolish.

There are many blind fools would blindly lead us down wrong paths.
The government (most of them never read the treaty) never educated us since they want us to vote yes on it. They just piece meal it to us and blinded our eyes on past benefits and expect us to be blindly grateful and vote yes. They claim the EU will fail or grin to a halt without changes with expansion of accession countries. NICE treaty was for that purpose and we voted yes. This treaty is completely different. It changes the structure of governing us not expansion. We were always going to lose our commissioner under NICE treaty once the countries became high enough. Anyway the commissioner start work, he/she is working for the EU not for their countries which most people mistakenly believe.
It is better to go into an agreement with our eyes open rather than covered over as our government has tried to do.

I am pro european. I was an undecided voter until the day of the referendum on lisbon, until I went back over the referendum literature and websites, listen to both sides of the campaign in recorded interviews and was not happy with the government response to valid questions and even more unhappy that they (Government) did not read the treaty that they wanted us to vote yes on. So it was not the NO campaign or local issues that convince me to vote NO , it was the Government!! I am still pro european.

is_that_so

PrivateEye wrote: »

The whole argument some made about Lisbon creating a more 'democratic' Europe has been tossed out the window by the manner in which EU leaders are trying to get around a democratic decision, as they did in 2005.

HOW can these people ever be accountable?
As I said before, a Yes vote on 2% turnout would be hailed a 'great day for democracy'

With the honourable exception of Eamon Gilmore, the Yes side are behaving like babies- Gay Mitchell the worst to date. Sarkozy should grow a pair and put this treaty before his own people, before calling us out.

Ray Crotty must be a name they hate in Brussels.

I think the European idea is crucial. We need a strong E.U. Saying that we need a democratic E.U, and I don't think that is going to come about with people like Sarkozy at the top of the table. Respect our vote (if you like the outcome or not) and go back to the drawing board.

Sure, some people will vote No if the EU offer them free money- but many of us asked ourselves which way to vote- and the current baby/rattle situation is only reaffirming in the mind the thought that voting 'Níl' was the right thing to do.

The result may be democratic but how people get to their decision is often not. IMO referenda always run the risk of becoming hostage to a multitude of vested interests, especially on something this complicated. It just invites any number of untruths and half-truths on either side. There is also the risk, as happened here, that people will use it to voice their unhappiness with their own politicians.

With the current climate of high food prices, inflation, fuel prices and general discontent any government in the EU would run the risk of a resounding No as well. And although one could argue that as democratic, I imagine it would produce a very wide range of reasons for rejection as we have had here.

IMO there is now a very serious disconnect between the voters and the political classes. Some of that is justified but some is not. Whether our own political masters can be bothered to address it remains to be seen but until they do we may not be bothered to listen to them.

Cionád

I would definitely vote yes again, and I'd persuade my pro-EU friends that didnt bother voting but would have voted Yes to get out there. Out of about 8 people I know who didnt vote, only 1 was going to vote no.

turgon

themont85 wrote: »

Are you suprised that the Europeans politicians are pissed of, they put 7 years into it.

Hitler put nearly seven years into world war two*, and yet I for one am glad he didnt get it his way.



*including Anchluss and the Czechoslovakia takeover.

PopeBuckfastXVI

turgon wrote: »

Hitler put nearly seven years into world war two*, and yet I for one am glad he didnt get it his way.



*including Anchluss and the Czechoslovakia takeover.

Oh hello Mr. Godwin... how nice of you to show up.


I would absolutely vote 'yes' again. Just like I'll be voting Green again in the next GE, and like I would have voted 'yes' in both divorce referenda.

It's democracy in action to have more than one vote my friends, otherwise you have an elected dictatorship!

Not only would I vote 'yes' but I'd get seriously and actively involved in campaigning, in particular in refuting the misinformation from the extremely vested interests on the 'no' side: Li_er__s (You can fill in the blanks)

ixtlan

Lazyfox wrote: »

Rather than taking a dressing down from Sarkcozy et al on Thursday, Cowen should before Thursday announce publicly a recommendation for a referendum in every country in the EU. Let the 500 million vote and come back to us if the majority agree.

Is that a majority of the 500 million in total? Which would likely pass, or a majority of people in each EU country, which would be likely to fail somewhere.

Is the EU more democratic if the 500 million vote together? Or if each country votes?

Ix.

ixtlan

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Not only would I vote 'yes' but I'd get seriously and actively involved in campaigning, in particular in refuting the misinformation from the extremely vested interests on the 'no' side: Li_er__s (You can fill in the blanks)

+1.

Scofflaw

ixtlan wrote: »

Is that a majority of the 500 million in total? Which would likely pass, or a majority of people in each EU country, which would be likely to fail somewhere.

Is the EU more democratic if the 500 million vote together? Or if each country votes?

Ix.

I would support an EU-wide referendum, I have to say.


cordially,
Scofflaw

TelePaul

I'd vote Yes a second time if given the opportunity. I don't find anything wrong with the OP's quotes.

MG

I'd vote yes again and I'd actually turn it around and ask No voters if they would vote no again? The reaction I am sensing from No voters I know (albeit middle class non-extremist types) is "oh my God, what have we done".
Seems to me that the Yes campaign didn't really want to address the consequences of a No vote in case they were accused of scaremongers and the No campaign were either cynical or naive in calling for Cowan to go back for a better deal. I wonder how many middle class No voters now regret their decision?

ninebeanrows

From what i noticed around my area, the people involved in GAA, Church events etc voted No while other people voted Yes.

Perhaps we could have the pub in all GAA clubs giving out free pints all day and have a 15 hour long church day during the next referendum:D

ixtlan

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would support an EU-wide referendum, I have to say.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes, I would too. However we both know that such a thing would be pointed to as an example of the much-feared EU super-state. So in the end I don't think this would actually gain much democratic credibility for the EU. We'd have people aghast at the idea of our few million being swamped by the hundreds of millions in Europe (the rest of... we are all Europe of course)

And of course we'd still have to have our own referendum anyhow...Ix.

irish_bob

Weathercheck wrote: »

From what i noticed around my area, the people involved in GAA, Church events etc voted No while other people voted Yes.

Perhaps we could have the pub in all GAA clubs giving out free pints all day and have a 15 hour long church day during the next referendum:D

theres a very good chance that would work , theres no better way of getting us irish on side then by buying us out with perks
we are a deeply unidealogical people which is why i firmly believe that the majority of people who voted no hadnt a clue what was in the actual text of the treaty
enough people bought the lie that it was in our interest to vote no

if the question had simply been , vote yes for more money in your pocket which if you break it down into those simple terms then the yes side would have rompled home

Khannie

MG wrote: »

I wonder how many middle class No voters now regret their decision?

Indeed. One lad in our office was duped by the abortion muppets at the last second (litterally minutes before he voted). When we told him that he had been duped and that our position on abortion was safe he seemed more than a little bit upset.

turgon

MG wrote: »

I wonder how many middle class No voters now regret their decision?

I for one don't. In fact the quotes and the general eurowide reaction has just heightened my concerns that the EU doesn't stand up for democracy.

IRLConor

turgon wrote: »

MG wrote:

I wonder how many middle class No voters now regret their decision?

I for one don't. In fact the quotes and the general eurowide reaction has just heightened my concerns that the EU doesn't stand up for democracy.

The difference is that you were an educated no voter with solid logical reasons for voting no. From what I can remember, they were based primarily on the treaty too!

I'm sure there are plenty of both yes and no voters out there who are disappointed at the way they voted on reflection.

If we do end up voting again on the treaty (or some variant thereof) are there any boardsies that are willing to help me put together a guide to the issue at hand? I'd be particularly interested in getting no campaigners to help make it as impartial as possible. I'm thinking of a combination of explanatory document and an FAQ-like section addressing the claims of all the political parties/lobby groups in an impartial manner.

ionix5891

I would defnately vote YES and this time i would get of my ass and campaign for it.


"Keep Ireland strong in Europe"

the above NO posters ring very hollow now

turgon

IRLConor wrote: »

If we do end up voting again on the treaty (or some variant thereof) are there any boardsies that are willing to help me put together a guide to the issue at hand?

Sign me up! The exams finish on Friday so ill be free then. But I would imagine there would be no need: I doubt there will be a second referendum on the exact same thing. But I will help if it comes around.

zig

Roxanne wrote: »

....would you vote no if the referendum was put to us a second time after hearing the reaction of European politicians in the aftermath of our decision?

There will be calls in the EU to ensure that a few thousand Irish voters do not hold up half a billion European citizens who want this treaty. -Antonio Missiroli
With all respect for the Irish vote, we cannot allow the huge majority of Europe to be duped by a minority of a minority of a minority. -Axel Schafer

These were posted in another thread. Do these quotes not clearly show that these people have no respect for democracy. The clear disregard for the "minority" , which is what Ireland and many other smaller countries represent in the EU is worrying to say the least.
Would you reconsider your yes vote after hearing this? I know I would.

I voted yes and campaigned for a yes vote, I am neither a member or a supporter of any political party. But I didnt let my like or dislike of any politician get in the way of my vote. I read as much as I could of the treaty and made my decision.

However after seeing some of these quotes from european politicans,and reading reactions of european press I am now strongly reconsidering my decision. I am starting to realise that this treaty would probably never have been passed if the whole of Europe was to vote. So they go ahead without listening to the people. Thats not democracy

IRLConor

turgon wrote: »

Sign me up! The exams finish on Friday so ill be free then. But I would imagine there would be no need: I doubt there will be a second referendum on the exact same thing. But I will help if it comes around.

Great!

I also doubt that we'll have a referendum on the exact same thing. That said, similar arguments come up in nearly every referendum on EU matters so it would be worth trying to explain which bits are true, which bits are stretching the truth, which bits are outright lies and which bits are the paranoid rantings of lunatics.

ionix5891

IRLConor wrote: »

Great!

I also doubt that we'll have a referendum on the exact same thing. That said, similar arguments come up in nearly every referendum on EU matters so it would be worth trying to explain which bits are true, which bits are stretching the truth, which bits are outright lies and which bits are the paranoid rantings of lunatics.

i agree

anyways aint the above the Job description of the Referendum commision?

IRLConor

zig wrote: »

I am starting to realise that this treaty would probably never have been passed if the whole of Europe was to vote.

I reckon that if they had a referendum in all countries it would have been rejected by more than one.

That said, in a perfect world where everyone read the treaty itself, understood it and only voted on the contents of it I reckon it would have been passed by all countries.

Roxanne

zig wrote: »

I voted yes and campaigned for a yes vote, I am neither a member or a supporter of any political party. But I didnt let my like or dislike of any politician get in the way of my vote. I read as much as I could of the treaty and made my decision.

However after seeing some of these quotes from european politicans,and reading reactions of european press I am now strongly reconsidering my decision. I am starting to realise that this treaty would probably never have been passed if the whole of Europe was to vote. So they go ahead without listening to the people. Thats not democracy

I would be similar to yourself in this regard. I did not listen to the propaganda of either side of the debate. I made an effort to educate myself on the issues at stake. I voted no.

I think it is terribly arrogant of alot of the yes voters on here to assume that people who voted NO are stupid and didn't understand the issues - were listening to lies from Libertas and Sinn Féin etc. The same can equally be said of the people who voted yes but yet people who voted no are being told they are stupid and ignorant.
It seems to me that if you voted yes then you are considered to be educated and understanding of the issues at hand, if you voted no you are told you obviously don't understand the issues at hand and questioned at length as to why you didn't vote yes. This is not respecting democracy.

I voted no and I do not regret my decision one bit. I still believe in and stand by my reasons why I voted no and I will not be bullied or frightened into thinking differently by anyone.

The quotes from the European ministers above simply reaffirm one of my reasons for voting no in the first place.

IRLConor

ionix5891 wrote: »

anyways aint the above the Job description of the Referendum commision?

Yes, but they don't comment directly on campaign claims made by either side and their information tends to be quite dumbed down [EDIT: or at least when they translated from legal-speak to English they lost some of the precision in the info]. They also present the information as an impartial observer rather than the consensus position of opposing sides. I think people are more likely to believe the latter than the former because it's hard to believe in the concept of an impartial observer.

What I envisage is a guide which explains the technical details as well as the fuzzy bits in what we'd be voting on. Everything would have direct citation links back to the treaty itself and complicated things like voting systems would be tested and simulated to give a hard mathematical/scientific background to the information presented. A strong emphasis would be put on verifiability so that a sceptical observer could prove to themselves that we weren't lying to them.