Why did you vote yes?

dh2007

To all the yes voters out there, I'm just wondering why you decided to vote yes. I read both sides of the arguement and to be honest, I could see no concrete reasons as to why I should vote yes.

We saw on the posters things like 'vote yes for jobs' and 'vote yes for the economy' but what I wanted to know is how this treaty would do these things for Ireland.

I ignored the scaremongering of Libertas and I rarely heed anything Sinn Fein say but what I did gather is that this treaty bestows much greater power to those in Brussells and this worried me.

so I put it out to the yes voters, can anyone cogently argue as to why we should have voted yes?

DH

kippy

Because I thought it was in the best interests of Ireland to ratify this treaty.
The moajority of what I heard from the no side was nonsense and cloudy to say the least.
People like scofflaw and others on this forum have really cleared up a lot of the cloudiness in the past few weeks and have allowed me to see the wood from the trees.

Canada J Soup

To list a few key reasons, I voted yes because the Lisbon Treaty would have: made the EU more democratic; made decision making processes fairer and more efficient; and would have provided a basis for all member states to better deal with problems like climate change, energy security, cross-border crime, and global economic instability. I also voted yes because I believe strongly in the charter of fundamental rights.

zig

I voted yes because on a whole, without any detail, I believe in the EU, and reading as much of the treaty as I could , I could see why this treaty needs to be ratified in this day in age. Another thing that confirmed my yes vote was the need for the vast majority of the no campaign to rely on false and exaggerated statements involving the treaty. It was a nice relief to come onto forums like this and see people giving respectable true reasons to vote no, but the reasons werent strong enough in my own opinion.

dh2007

kippy wrote: »

Because I thought it was in the best interests of Ireland to ratify this treaty.
The moajority of what I heard from the no side was nonsense and cloudy to say the least.
People like scofflaw and others on this forum have really cleared up a lot of the cloudiness in the past few weeks and have allowed me to see the wood from the trees.

ok but I don't regard that as a concrete argument as to why we should've voted yes. How is it in the best interests of our country??

and for Canada J Soup - they are some excellent reasons to vote yes and are the reasons why I would've voted yes. However, the overarching issue for me was that too much power was going to Europe and I felt it was taking the EU a step too far.

People seemed to have voted no for a variety of different reasons and I think that's the key - too many things were being changed under this treaty so it was bound to cause disagreements among many fractions

dh2007

zig wrote: »

I voted yes because on a whole, without any detail, I believe in the EU, and reading as much of the treaty as I could , I could see why this treaty needs to be ratified in this day in age. Another thing that confirmed my yes vote was the need for the vast majority of the no campaign to rely on false and exaggerated statements involving the treaty. It was a nice relief to come onto forums like this and see people giving respectable true reasons to vote no, but the reasons werent strong enough in my own opinion.

excuse me if I sound a bit ignorant, but I don't understand what needs to be changed. I think that's the fundamental cause of the No outcome - people didn't quite understand what we were changing and doubt harbours suspicion and I have to admit I fell victim to this to some degree.

kippy

dh2007 wrote: »

ok but I don't regard that as a concrete argument as to why we should've voted yes. How is it in the best interests of our country??

and for Canada J Soup - they are some excellent reasons to vote yes and are the reasons why I would've voted yes. However, the overarching issue for me was that too much power was going to Europe and I felt it was taking the EU a step too far.

People seemed to have voted no for a variety of different reasons and I think that's the key - too many things were being changed under this treaty so it was bound to cause disagreements among many fractions

Being honest,
I dont fancy going into all the reasoning when its already all over this and other fora. What'll happen then is a no'er will come along and say all my reasoning is wrong. I also appreciate the fact that the vote is over and that I wont be changing anyones opinions that make a difference at this stage.
There was absolutely NOTHING from the no side that I could believe in.
Kippy

dh2007

kippy wrote: »

Being honest,
I dont fancy going into all the reasoning when its already all over this and other fora. What'll happen then is a no'er will come along and say all my reasoning is wrong. I also appreciate the fact that the vote is over and that I wont be changing anyones opinions that make a difference at this stage.
There was absolutely NOTHING from the no side that I could believe in.
Kippy

I wasn't asking you to change your vote. I was in no antagonistic when I posed my question in my OP. I genuinely want to understand why people voted yes. There was nothing in the media or on boards that gave me any coherent answers on the implications of voting yes.

PLus, you were not forced into replying to my post so there's no need to get antsy about it. If you believe that what happened last Thursday is irrelevant then I don't understand why you're still reading posts about it.

zig

dh2007 wrote: »

excuse me if I sound a bit ignorant, but I don't understand what needs to be changed. I think that's the fundamental cause of the No outcome - people didn't quite understand what we were changing and doubt harbours suspicion and I have to admit I fell victim to this to some degree.

maybe have a flick through this, a bit cheesy and quirky but it gives positives for the yes side as opposed to just negatives for the no side. It is honest too.
http://www.toland.ie/Some_light_relief_files/Spoofers%20guide%20to%20Lisbon%20FINAL.pdf

dh2007

zig wrote: »

maybe have a flick through this, a bit cheesy and quirky but it gives positives for the yes side as opposed to just negatives for the no side. It is honest too.
http://www.toland.ie/Some_light_relief_files/Spoofers%20guide%20to%20Lisbon%20FINAL.pdf

thanks will look it up now. I'm kinda dreading looking at it though cos it can't change how I voted last week...

VoidStarNull

I voted YES because I thought the treaty was a fantastic coup for Ireland. One of the sticking points all along the negotiations was the relative strength of large and small nations under the new treaty. The final outcome was very favourable to Ireland, allowing us to continue punching well above our weight. The fact that the large nations agreed to equality in the Commission was in particular a huge concession on their part. If the treaty had been passed, they would have been locked into this system for the foreseeable future.

The other reason for voting YES is that the treaty strenghtens Europe's ability to promote values that I personnally believe in. These include an international order based on institutions (like the UN) and the rule of law, cooperation based on international treaties (like Kyoto), and a social democratic model of economic development. The EU is the only actor that I see on the world stage trying to promote these values.

I think the image of the EU that is promoted by left-wing NO campaigners - a rampant miltaristic superpower devoted to laissez-faire capitalism - is a complete caricature of the reality. Similarly the image promoted by right-wingers, of an interfering nanny state trying to stamp out democracy and free enterprise. The fact that these false images can exist simultaneously already tells us a lot.

Finally I realize that a lot of NO campaigners are concerned about the ratification process itself and whether it is democratic (quite apart from any issues with the treaty). I certainly agree that the process is a mess, but instead of seeing this as a conspiracy, I just think it's what happens when you've got 27 nations trying to reach a common agreement.

Scofflaw

VoidStarNull wrote: »

I voted YES because I thought the treaty was a fantastic coup for Ireland. One of the sticking points all along the negotiations was the relative strength of large and small nations under the new treaty. The final outcome was very favourable to Ireland, allowing us to continue punching well above our weight. The fact that the large nations agreed to equality in the Commission was in particular a huge concession on their part. If the treaty had been passed, they would have been locked into this system for the foreseeable future.

The other reason for voting YES is that the treaty strenghtens Europe's ability to promote values that I personnally believe in. These include an international order based on institutions (like the UN) and the rule of law, cooperation based on international treaties (like Kyoto), and a social democratic model of economic development. The EU is the only actor that I see on the world stage trying to promote these values.

I think the image of the EU that is promoted by left-wing NO campaigners - a rampant miltaristic superpower devoted to laissez-faire capitalism - is a complete caricature of the reality. Similarly the image promoted by right-wingers, of an interfering nanny state trying to stamp out democracy and free enterprise. The fact that these false images can exist simultaneously already tells us a lot.

Finally I realize that a lot of NO campaigners are concerned about the ratification process itself and whether it is democratic (quite apart from any issues with the treaty). I certainly agree that the process is a mess, but instead of seeing this as a conspiracy, I just think it's what happens when you've got 27 nations trying to reach a common agreement.

Well put.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sink

I voted yes because the EU would have become more democratic, open and transparent. It would have done this in two major ways, first by opening the council to public scrutiny and second by giving the parliament a lot more power. A knock-on effect of opening the council would have been the added drama of ministers squabbling, this would have made the EU institution much more interesting to watch and people would then learn a lot more about it.

I also voted yes because it would have cleaned up the tangled mess of EU institutions. It would have done this by shrinking the commission and merging the three pillar structure into one organisation.

Basically the clinched arguments of the politicians 'more openness, more democracy and more efficiency'. Pity they didn't explain why better.

ixtlan

dh2007 wrote: »

the overarching issue for me was that too much power was going to Europe and I felt it was taking the EU a step too far.

People seemed to have voted no for a variety of different reasons and I think that's the key - too many things were being changed under this treaty so it was bound to cause disagreements among many fractions

The step too far issue comes up all the time. You need to help us help you by specifying what power you are talking about. We have pooled power, rather than lost it. That's a subjective view but held by many people. You have to answer the question... which areas has the EU got new competency in under Lisbon which concern you? Too much power is too vague. Just as vague as vote yes for jobs. Many of the new areas covered by QMV really are best handled by the Eu as a whole (of which we are a part, it's not them and us). For example energy security, and some international crime/justice matters.

As for too many things changing, there were many items brought up in the debate, many of which were irrelevant. In actual fact this was one of the more minor treaties compared to what we voted on in the past.

Ix.

P_1

I voted yes for 2 main reasons

1- I do not trust Libertas or Sinn Fein one little bit. In fact the only group from the No camp that I would trust are the People Before Profit Alliance.

2- I felt that even if Ireland voted no, the EU would still steamroll along with trying to ratify the treaty. Whats happening now reenforces my opinion on that. I figured why should I vote no if that vote is going to be ignored and a No vote could potentially leave Ireland in a far weaker position in the EU.

Crash

I voted yes for a number of reasons:

1)Reform is always enevitable - the EU has been a flawed body for a long time thanks to its own restraints. A number of the pieces, such as in relation to ensuring the commission was a workable size, a common legal entity and greater transparency at least in my mind I see as good things.

2)I believe we had a treaty put before us where we bargained and gained FAR above our weight, and didn't want to see that ability lost in an air of negative press, as is happening at the moment. We've punched far above our size for a long time in the EU, and have suceeded in doing so by being progressive and proactive. This is a trend which we need to continue with to ensure the strongest possible bargaining position for Ireland, IMO.

To get down to more idealogical notions:

3)I believe that the EU has to be based on the idea of cooperation and giving to essentially suceed. A purely irish-centric view on an organisation like the EU would have seen us leaving scant short months following our position changing to being a net contributor. This wasn't so much a reason for voting yes as a reason against voting no, to be honest.

4)Unlike a lot of people here, I do still have an ok amount of faith in representative democracy. I don't believe, for instance, that by all our major political parties favouring yes, that there must be some grand conspiracy. I do believe that we elect TD's to stand in a position where they are, in a lot of cases, more informed than we are, and would always hope that that is true. EDIT: On top of this, I still then believe that representative democracy is more than adequate for the ratification of treaties outside of where constitutionally bound, and so have no issue with the ratifications elsewhere.

5)To a much lesser amount than 1 and 2, which would have been my main reasons, and 3 and 4, which are much more my own personal ideology than informed opinion, I simply didn't trust the parties involved in the NO campaign. The yes campaign was inefficient, stupid, egotistical, and an utter disgrace, but I have never felt so much disgust in my life as the point about two weeks prior to the referendum when I took a break in my exams to read up on stuff, and saw the level of truth bending and out right fabrication of facts. On top of that, I resented majorly points such as "people died for your freedom", which I found utterly wrong.

So there are my reasons I guess this is a 2am post, so I may backtrack in that some of those may not have been the most thought out, but hope it helps give others an insight anyhow.

Crash

pithater1 wrote: »

1- I do not trust Libertas or Sinn Fein one little bit. In fact the only group from the No camp that I would trust are the Socialist Workers Party.

Sorry pithater, just had to correct that one Have NO idea how you can find tha group in anyway trustworthy, any run-ins i've had with them have shown them to be a truly sad, misinformed and despicable bunch.

is_that_so

VoidStarNull has articulated extremely well many of my own reasons. I have always been a firm believer in the EU. It may not be perfect, but it one of the best examples of how a large number of nations can have mutual co-operation and co-exist peacefully, a fact highlighted by the nascent AU.

It has also allowed us to get away from that 19th century mindset that gave us innumerable wars and mutual suspicion for over a century and a half.

On the vote itself I saw the treaty as a mechanism to do some very necessary housekeeping and provide a leaner, more efficient, more accountable EU. I felt it offered a reasonable mix of idealism and a recognition of the reality of our world. The greater democracy I believe would have come from ratification would have given us all a better say in where the EU goes.

dh2007

I think you've all given reasons that are extremely valid, succinctly put and straightforward.

I was swaying between either sides prior to the election but couldn't find any clear documentation from the yes side. I'm sure I'm going to be accused of careless voting but I genuinely thought I'd made the right decision last week and now I'm starting to regret it. This probably sounds like a bit of a cop out but I was literally up to my eyeballs the two weeks before the election too which didn't help. I really think the government made a complete hash of this because this week when I've had more time I've had the oppportunity to dig deeper (spend more time on boards and the like ) and I don't like what I'm finding!

I think all the boardsies should become spokespeople for the two sides - they seem to be the most rational and easiest to follow!

cornbb

My sentiments would be mostly in line with what others here have said. Firstly I've always been extremely pro-EU, which would naturally make me inclined to vote yes. Historically, reform treaties have been good for the EU, and there was no reason this one would be any different.

As I learned about the changes that would be implemented by the treaty, I became convinced that it would be good: a more democratic voting system, a streamlined commission, more power in the hands of both the Dail and the European Parliament. Overall, a reformed EU that would have a stronger voice in the world and that would be equipped to tackle the challenges of the 21st century.

I felt that many of the no voters I spoke to nitpicked over minor details and failed to see the bigger picture - even if someone has a few valid concerns over minor details of the treaty, it must be remembered that the document is a concession between 27 countries. But I also agree that the yes campaign failed miserably to communicate the benefits.

hardCopy

zig wrote: »

maybe have a flick through this, a bit cheesy and quirky but it gives positives for the yes side as opposed to just negatives for the no side. It is honest too.
http://www.toland.ie/Some_light_relief_files/Spoofers%20guide%20to%20Lisbon%20FINAL.pdf

Ooh, I could have done with that last week to show my mates.

While it's clearly a yes campaign, at least it's readable, I would have loved for someone neutral, preferably well known, to have come out with something similar

Dyr

is_that_so wrote: »

It has also allowed us to get away from that 19th century mindset that gave us innumerable wars and mutual suspicion for over a century and a half.

you mean the mindset that placed enormous resources and power in the hands of a small group of people with ill defined checks and balances to reign them in? :pac:

bill_ashmount

pithater1 wrote: »

2- I felt that even if Ireland voted no, the EU would still steamroll along with trying to ratify the treaty. Whats happening now reenforces my opinion on that. I figured why should I vote no if that vote is going to be ignored and a No vote could potentially leave Ireland in a far weaker position in the EU.

:rolleyes:

Bambi wrote: »

you mean the mindset that placed enormous resources and power in the hands of a small group of people with ill defined checks and balances to reign them in? :pac:

lol

is_that_so

Bambi wrote: »

you mean the mindset that placed enormous resources and power in the hands of a small group of people with ill defined checks and balances to rein them in? :pac:

Fixed that for you. And I know what I mean thank you but I suspect you misread what I meant.

PH01

Wasn't this thread done already?

Anyway, I voted Yes because the EU has been very good for Ireland's interests and I believe it will continue to be good for this country.

And I was further pursuaded to vote YES by Patricia McKenna, COIR, SF, Kathy Sinnott, Declan Ganley and Veritas.

HitlersHorsebox

VoidStarNull wrote: »

I certainly agree that the process is a mess, but instead of seeing this as a conspiracy, I just think it's what happens when you've got 27 nations trying to reach a common agreement.

And that's the problem. 27 countries with different history, different culture and languages. There is always going to be problems when you try to bring countries like that together politically no matter where in the world they are situated. Every time you implement something new or call for change there is going to be someone who objects to it. And how can a big group of countries like that have a common goal? Especially on foreign policy?

While a lot of people see reasons to vote yes and i could see that there was positive reasons to vote yes in the economic and political sense such as making things run better. However i don't agree with a political agenda of an entire continent that is contunuingly expanding. I agree with the joining together for trade purposes. Not for further political integration. And i think that's why a lot of people voted no even if they couldn't put it in words correctly. They just don't want to be politically involved in Europe. Most people i know gave that reason in a round about way.

guinnessdrinker

I'm not sure if anyone will admit it but did anyone:

1. Vote YES just because SF supported a NO vote?

2. Vote YES because FF/FG/Lab supported a YES vote.

3. Vote YES because people didn't trust Libertas/Socialist Party/SWP/Coir etc.?

If they did vote YES (and I'm sure a lot did) purely for one of those reasons but did not understand the treaty was it wrong that they voted?

I ask this because I heard the argument a few times in the run up to the referendum that "if you don't understand the treaty don't vote at all" but that statement seemed to me to be aimed at people that were veering towards a NO vote.

cabrwab

I didnt get to vote, due to work, with hindsight im ashamed nearly because i would've voted no.
But the yes campaign were so sure we'll succeed just because we said so. The posters of vote yes because my smiley face tells you look iam friendly

But granted its interesting how other countries are reacting to us.
"stupid little country like ireland"
"how dare they, the eu gave us so much"

I was thinking about voting no because i didnt fully understand what this was about. The debates brought me no closer to understanding it. I tried reading the handbook and it seemed to just not make sense.
Im not a troll im not trying to start or be part of an argument.
Thanks and sorry.

Crash

Guinnessdrinker: I'll state that points 1 and 3 definitely made me a bit more paranoid about the no side I'm not a party man, so 2 not so much.

kippy

dh2007 wrote: »

I wasn't asking you to change your vote. I was in no antagonistic when I posed my question in my OP. I genuinely want to understand why people voted yes. There was nothing in the media or on boards that gave me any coherent answers on the implications of voting yes.

PLus, you were not forced into replying to my post so there's no need to get antsy about it. If you believe that what happened last Thursday is irrelevant then I do
n't understand why you're still reading posts about it.

Sorry,
I think you need to reread my post again.....this time slower.
I wasnt asking you to change your vote, nor was I saying that last week was irrelevent.
Kippy

ionix5891

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

1. Vote YES just because SF supported a NO vote?

one of the reasons, out of all the parties i trust Sein Fein the least, their behavior in the last few days further reinforces this, they used this treaty vote to gain more exposure and publicity to further their own agenda (more so than other parties)

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

2. Vote YES because FF/FG/Lab supported a YES vote.

not at all, i was surprised there was such support even from the greens

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

3. Vote YES because people didn't trust Libertas/Socialist Party/SWP/Coir etc.?

I dont trust Libertas at all not with the US military ties and questionable funding, also the fud scaremongering campaign was sickening and insulting

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

If they did vote YES (and I'm sure a lot did) purely for one of those reasons but did not understand the treaty was it wrong that they voted?

I had plenty of other reasons, for a small country this would have gave us alot more influence in europe

also the EU exit point looked good if the **** ever hit the fan

and finally as a business owner and an employer the taught of the uncertainty that the NO vote would bring (and has brought) at a time when the economy is not doing so well was disturbing ( and in the last few days alot of these concerns have proven to be justified )

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

I ask this because I heard the argument a few times in the run up to the referendum that "if you don't understand the treaty don't vote at all" but that statement seemed to me to be aimed at people that were veering towards a NO vote.

A NO camapaigner came to my door few days before and then told my girlfriend "if you dont KNOW vote NO" !!!! thats just so wrong its not funny


and finally i found the 1 million signature thing to get an issue looked at quite intresting