Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

EU going ahead with Lisbon even though we voted no

  • 13-04-2009 4:34pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 865 ✭✭✭


    Was just reading in the Independent today *goes to find link...damn can't find one* that the EU is going ahead with plans that require the Lisbon Treaty to be passed. More than 530 European Commission staff have begun training for the EU External Action Service.

    Where the hell is democracy? They've completely disregarded our vote :mad:

    If you have the Independent, it's page 8 on the bottom left


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 92 ✭✭cls


    If Ireland doesn't want it, we don't have to take it. Are you suggesting we dictate what the rest of the EU can and cannot do?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 865 ✭✭✭Purple Gorilla


    No but I'm suggesting that they respect the vote of the Irish people. If a treaty requires unanimity to pass, and it doesn't get that, then that means the treaty doesn't come into force.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Preparatory work for the External Action Service was put in motion immediately the Treaty was signed:
    The Conference declares that, as soon as the Treaty of Lisbon is signed, the Secretary-General of the Council, High Representative for the common foreign and security policy, the Commission and the Member States should begin preparatory work on the European External Action Service.

    "Signed" rather than ratified. Honestly, does nobody actually read these things?

    As to "Lisbon is dead" - you may have noticed that it isn't. The Treaty will not be dead until two years have passed from signing without everybody being able to ratify, whereupon the matter is referred to the European Council to work out what happens next (again, that's in the Treaty). If we hold a referendum this autumn, and ratify Lisbon, that's legally identical to having ratified it last summer - since that vote will be just as respectable as the other. Unless perhaps you feel only the first vote should count?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭r14


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Honestly, does nobody actually read these things?

    I think people not reading the actual Treaty may have been the problem with the Lisbon vote in the first place. :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 198 ✭✭strathspey


    No but I'm suggesting that they respect the vote of the Irish people. If a treaty requires unanimity to pass, and it doesn't get that, then that means the treaty doesn't come into force.

    When are the Irish going to realise that they aren't special. Lets remember that Europe doesn't need us, but my God do we need Europe. A piss-willy nation on the periphery of Europe representing less than 1% of the EU population cannot hold the rest of Europe back. Europe will proceed whether we like it or not and we may as well hitch a ride!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,382 ✭✭✭✭greendom


    So Ireland is the little kid who doesn't want to play and takes his ball away. Guess the bigger boys and girls have found another ball to play with


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 92 ✭✭cls


    No but I'm suggesting that they respect the vote of the Irish people.
    Why should they? I'm not being smart, I hear this lack of respect for the Irish vote talk a lot and when I stop and think about it I cannot see what the argument behind it is. It probably comes from the fact that I myself have no respect for the outcome nor do I have any respect for our government. So please somebody explain why the outcome should be respected?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,829 ✭✭✭KerranJast


    They can quite easily redraft the Treaty so it applies to everyone but Ireland (and possibly the Czechs) and get it re ratified in the various Parliaments without a need for referendums.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭r14


    cls wrote: »
    Why should they? I'm not being smart, I hear this lack of respect for the Irish vote talk a lot and when I stop and think about it I cannot see what the argument behind it is. It probably comes from the fact that I myself have no respect for the outcome nor do I have any respect for our government. So please somebody explain why the outcome should be respected?

    The Irish Government should respect the Irish vote (and hopefully they'll have the good sense to run it again soon so we can change our minds).

    The other European States should respect their own votes. Why should Spain or Luxembourg who both had referendums on the text of the Constitutional Treaty (95% the same) disrespect their peoples votes by refusing to ratify a Treaty which their people clearly want.

    We do not control Europe. If the other States want to go ahead they should and we can either catch up or get out. If one member of a team decides he doesn't want to play in the big match should the rest of the team be forced to respect his decision?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,037 ✭✭✭Nothingbetter2d


    in all honesty it would have been a yes vote last time except fianna fail made a complete hash of the yes campaign like they did with the nice treaty

    The reasons why most of the irish voted no were simple

    1. the joe soap public had no real idea what it all about
    2. liberatas knew this and found it easy to scare the public into a NO vote
    3. fianna fail did nothing to explain in laymans terms what a yes vote would have done to benefit both the eu as a whole and the irish people.
    4. information leaflets stuck in our mail boxes were vague at best


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,287 ✭✭✭kevteljeur


    in all honesty it would have been a yes vote last time except fianna fail made a complete hash of the yes campaign like they did with the nice treaty

    The reasons why most of the irish voted no were simple

    1. the joe soap public had no real idea what it all about
    2. liberatas knew this and found it easy to scare the public into a NO vote
    3. fianna fail did nothing to explain in laymans terms what a yes vote would have done to benefit both the eu as a whole and the irish people.
    4. information leaflets stuck in our mail boxes were vague at best

    Leo Varadkar actually pointed out a massive reason, which you'll find isn't widely referred to by our local politicians, for the failure of the pro-Lisbon campaign. Which is that the 'main' political parties all promoted mostly themselves in the referendum campaign, as if they were running an election campaign, which made it much easier to run against that campaign using Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt since the actually issues weren't being readily referred to by the pro-Lisbon campaigners.

    While I'm fairly pro-Lisbon myself, I think the pro-Lisbon campaign got the humiliating defeat they deserved.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    kevteljeur wrote: »
    Leo Varadkar actually pointed out a massive reason, which you'll find isn't widely referred to by our local politicians, for the failure of the pro-Lisbon campaign. Which is that the 'main' political parties all promoted mostly themselves in the referendum campaign, as if they were running an election campaign, which made it much easier to run against that campaign using Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt since the actually issues weren't being readily referred to by the pro-Lisbon campaigners.

    While I'm fairly pro-Lisbon myself, I think the pro-Lisbon campaign got the humiliating defeat they deserved.

    I have no option but to agree with you there...

    sadly,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,026 ✭✭✭Killaqueen!!!


    r14 wrote: »
    The Irish Government should respect the Irish vote (and hopefully they'll have the good sense to run it again soon so we can change our minds).

    The other European States should respect their own votes. Why should Spain or Luxembourg who both had referendums on the text of the Constitutional Treaty (95% the same) disrespect their peoples votes by refusing to ratify a Treaty which their people clearly want.

    We do not control Europe. If the other States want to go ahead they should and we can either catch up or get out. If one member of a team decides he doesn't want to play in the big match should the rest of the team be forced to respect his decision?

    How are we to know that certain member states want to ratify the Treaty if they don't hold referendums?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    How are we to know that certain member states want to ratify the Treaty if they don't hold referendums?

    If you look, you'll see that he's referring to Spain and Luxembourg, which held referendums on the Constitution:
    Why should Spain or Luxembourg who both had referendums on the text of the Constitutional Treaty (95% the same) disrespect their peoples votes by refusing to ratify a Treaty which their people clearly want.

    You just need to read the whole sentence.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,889 ✭✭✭evercloserunion


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I have no option but to agree with you there...

    sadly,
    Scofflaw
    Hey, don't tar us all with the one brush.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,698 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    you're part of the campaign from the last referendum?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    No but I'm suggesting that they respect the vote of the Irish people. If a treaty requires unanimity to pass, and it doesn't get that, then that means the treaty doesn't come into force.

    The treaty requires each member state to ratify the treaty in accordance with their own consitutional provisions, thus, all member states are still required to ratify the treaty, even if ratification fails in Ireland.

    This would then lead to a meeting at which the other member states would ask the Irish delegation "Where exactly are the problems in the treaty that you have?".

    At this point, if the Irish delegation CAN point to line X or Y within the treaty, then the other member states can potentially do something about it. This is not to say they will like it, since they could not unreasonably ask why the electorate didn't raise these issues with our government prior to our government agreeing to the treaty on our behalf (To which the answer is a rather embarassing - the electorate were asleep).

    Alternatively, if the Irish delegation CANNOT point to line X or Y within the treaty, then the other member states cannot fix any problems we have. At that point, they will probably point out that - under the existing EU treaties - one of the objectives of the EU is to build on the existing treaties (i.e. to have new treaties, such as Lisbon). That would then mean Ireland is in breech of our commitments under the existing EU treaties to do so, which of course would raise the issues of: a) why we are a member of the EU in the first place, and, b) why the other member states should honour their (EU) commitment to free trade with/from us, when we are not prepared to honour our (EU) commitments to them.

    Still, not to worry, what better time to go it alone than in the middle of biggest global economic turmoil since the 1930s...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,889 ✭✭✭evercloserunion


    BlitzKrieg wrote: »
    you're part of the campaign from the last referendum?
    I volunteered with a non-party organization (the Alliance for Europe). We worked damn hard and got our point across well, but unfortunately it was a drop in the ocean compared to groups like Libertas as well as the pro-Lisbon political parties.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Irish voters blocked the Lisbon Treaty, which provides the legal basis for a new Euro-diplomatic corps, when they rejected the renamed EU Constitution in a referendum last June.

    The disclosure that the Commission has simply pressed on regardless and begun training the euro-diplomats infuriated Irish politicians.
    That's news to me. Unless of course the Telegraph is trying to suggest that Ganley is a politician? I am shocked and appalled.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,889 ✭✭✭evercloserunion


    I love the way the move allegedly infuriated Irish politicians but the only Irish "politician" quoted was Declan Ganley.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 246 ✭✭live2thewire


    so spain and luxembourg passed it, surely if 16 out of 27 states pass it then lisbon should go ahead. after all that is a democracy.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,889 ✭✭✭evercloserunion


    so spain and luxembourg passed it, surely if 16 out of 27 states pass it then lisbon should go ahead. after all that is a democracy.
    No, the Lisbon Treaty requires unanimous support to pass. As it has not received such support (Ireland holding back everyone else) it has not been implemented. All the Commission are doing are beginning the ground work of the post-Lisbon diplomatic corps in anticipation of Ireland voting Yes the second time round, which evidently they expect to happen. This is not, as the Torygraph would have us believe, the same as actually establishing and operating a common diplomatic agency as if the Lisbon Treaty had passed when it hasn't. All they are doing is attempting to get the training out of the way while we're waiting for it to be passed, thus saving a lot of time and maybe even money.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,813 ✭✭✭BaconZombie


    No the main reason was because it was a "self-reinforcing" Treaty .
    in all honesty it would have been a yes vote last time except fianna fail made a complete hash of the yes campaign like they did with the nice treaty

    The reasons why most of the irish voted no were simple

    1. the joe soap public had no real idea what it all about
    2. liberatas knew this and found it easy to scare the public into a NO vote
    3. fianna fail did nothing to explain in laymans terms what a yes vote would have done to benefit both the eu as a whole and the irish people.
    4. information leaflets stuck in our mail boxes were vague at best


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭r14


    Privately, officials are concerned that disclosure of the EU's pre-emptive moves could sway Irish voters and make a "Yes" vote in the referendum harder to achieve. Secret minutes on the EEAS negotiations recognise the need "to remain cautious in presenting these issues" ahead of the second Irish vote.

    These guys should get a new thesaurus. I lost count of he number of times they used the word secret in that article. If it's so secret how come it's common knowledge.

    I believe Scofflaw already addressed the reason why they are going ahead with the preparation for the EAS but it may need to be reiterated.
    Preparatory work for the External Action Service was put in motion immediately the Treaty was signed:

    Quote:
    The Conference declares that, as soon as the Treaty of Lisbon is signed, the Secretary-General of the Council, High Representative for the common foreign and security policy, the Commission and the Member States should begin preparatory work on the European External Action Service.
    "Signed" rather than ratified. Honestly, does nobody actually read these things?

    People should really pay attention when things are explained clearly to them. Preparation for the EAS is going ahead because that was always the plan and it is not a "secret" conspiracy to controvert our will.

    Nice to know the telegraph are so concerned about the health of our democracy though


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    BOFH_139 wrote: »
    No the main reason was because it was a "self-reinforcing" Treaty .
    It was a what now?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It was a what now?

    Perhaps he means 'self-amending'! No doubt misinterpreting what 'self-amending' actually means.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,698 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    so uhmm are we sure these are policies only linked to the lisbon treaty or is this like the whole commisioner thing where it was something we already agreed to but hadnt defined how it would work?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27 ukraine_orange


    If we got a Yes result, yet people didn't know what they voted for, would we be sitting here wondering when we would have to vote again? No, because it was the result they wanted regardless of how they got it.

    I find it unfair that my friends have to vote again because they "didn't understand it". No, they didn't read the Libertas crap. They read the treaty, understood it, but didn't agree with most of it.

    I sway between Yes and No regularly, but I will abstain from voting.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,698 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    If we got a Yes result, yet people didn't know what they voted for, would we be sitting here wondering when we would have to vote again? No, because it was the result they wanted regardless of how they got it.


    Simple representative democracy

    The government the people vote in are free to hold referendums on any number of issues.

    Including ones that have already been up for referendum and had been passed or not.

    The reason why a Yes vote would never be put to a 2nd referendum is because the parties that would push for it are never in government.

    If they were in government you can bet your socks it would be up for a 2nd referendum in a heartbeat.

    its how the system works.

    There is nothing undemocratic or bullying or anything involved in the process, its how it works and how it always works.

    If we had a referendum on gay marriage tomorrow and it passed and then a year down the line a right wing conservative christian movement got in power, they are fully within their rights to have another referendum on the issue and the theory would be the prior one would be overturned because why would people vote for such a party unless they wanted such issues addressed.

    Its how it bloody works.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    No, because it was the result they wanted regardless of how they got it.

    Well at least they were honest in that regard. One would hardly use the adjective "honest" to describe the No campaign, would you?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    in all honesty it would have been a yes vote last time except fianna fail made a complete hash of the yes campaign like they did with the nice treaty

    The reasons why most of the irish voted no were simple

    1. the joe soap public had no real idea what it all about
    2. liberatas knew this and found it easy to scare the public into a NO vote
    3. fianna fail did nothing to explain in laymans terms what a yes vote would have done to benefit both the eu as a whole and the irish people.
    4. information leaflets stuck in our mail boxes were vague at best

    Plus Cowen publicly saying he didn't read the Treaty and had no intention of reading it didn't help the "Yes" cause either.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27 ukraine_orange


    BlitzKrieg wrote: »
    Simple representative democracy

    The government the people vote in are free to hold referendums on any number of issues.

    Including ones that have already been up for referendum and had been passed or not.

    The reason why a Yes vote would never be put to a 2nd referendum is because the parties that would push for it are never in government.

    If they were in government you can bet your socks it would be up for a 2nd referendum in a heartbeat.

    its how the system works.

    There is nothing undemocratic or bullying or anything involved in the process, its how it works and how it always works.

    If we had a referendum on gay marriage tomorrow and it passed and then a year down the line a right wing conservative christian movement got in power, they are fully within their rights to have another referendum on the issue and the theory would be the prior one would be overturned because why would people vote for such a party unless they wanted such issues addressed.

    Its how it bloody works.

    I know how it "bloody works", I just don't agree with it, and I don't think it's right that you can overturn the people's vote because you don't like the result. And when is this next referendum? Before October? I still haven't seen anything by the Government to help push the Yes vote. They can't sit on their arse and hope for the right result because that has failed many times before.

    The reality is is that we are never going to have a "No to Lisbon" supporter party in Government, so we wouldn't even get the chance to vote on it again if it was originally a Yes result. It would have been signed and ratified in a heartbeat, regardless of how the result was reached, be it by people's knowledge of the treaty or lack-of.

    I never said it was undemocratic or bullying. I said it is unfair for the people who have to vote again, regardless of what they voted for. I know a few people who are cheesed off at the fact they have to vote again, and they are Yes voters. They think it's an absolute joke.
    turgon wrote: »
    Well at least they were honest in that regard. One would hardly use the adjective "honest" to describe the No campaign, would you?

    My friends didn't need any campaigns, they voted on the treaty, not what the posters and leaflets said. So I don't know who's being dishonest, nor do I care. The fact is is that the Government is biased and have made us look like fools. "The majority of the public didn't know what they were voting on" was the usual pish spouted by Cowen while Sarkozy prodded him, yet you'd find Yes voters voting on things that don't concern the treaty directly, like "Europe has been good to us".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭r14


    I know how it "bloody works", I just don't agree with it, and I don't think it's right that you can overturn the people's vote because you don't like the result.

    Agreed. We decided in our first election in 1938 that Fianna Fail should be in Government so we should never have another general election. I mean it's not like opinions change or anything. While we're at it lets get rid of divorce because it was rejected the first time so it should never have been brought to the people ever again.

    The argument that the people should never be asked their opinion more than once is not what I would call democracy.
    The reality is is that we are never going to have a "No to Lisbon" supporter party in Government, so we wouldn't even get the chance to vote on it again if it was originally a Yes result.

    So the fact that the No campaign can't muster enough popular support to get elected into Dail Eireann is an argument for not putting the question to the people again? 10% of Dail deputies favoured the No campaign yet they got 50% of the airtime. This was blatantly undemocratic but because it favoured the No side no one ever comments on this particular democratic deficit.
    I said it is unfair for the people who have to vote again, regardless of what they voted for. I know a few people who are cheesed off at the fact they have to vote again, and they are Yes voters. They think it's an absolute joke.

    If the Government fell tomorrow there would be a general election notwithstanding the fact that we just had one 2 years ago. Would this inconvenience your friends? They may have to exercise the responsibility that is their democratic voice even if they think it's a joke that the Government fell.

    If they want their voice to count they should vote every time the proposition is put to them. Plenty of people would kill (literally) for the inconvenience of being asked to vote on important decisions.
    The fact is is that the Government is biased and have made us look like fools.

    Thank God we had the wholly impartial No campaign to make us look smart by telling us that the treaty would allow "Europe" to microchip 3 year old kids.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    I never said it was undemocratic or bullying. I said it is unfair for the people who have to vote again, regardless of what they voted for. I know a few people who are cheesed off at the fact they have to vote again, and they are Yes voters. They think it's an absolute joke.

    To be fair, the people have nobody to blame but themselves. A huge portion of voters claim to not know what they were voting on, which is strange that they felt it was their constitutional right to vote yet not their constitutional obligation to find out why they're voting. All the information was out there, but people refused to inform themselves and that is what makes Ireland look foolish.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 986 ✭✭✭DJCR


    Where the hell is democracy? They've completely disregarded our vote :mad:

    If it wasn't for our constitution we wouldn't of had a vote at all... so I'm thankful we had a vote.

    2ndly, as already mentioned, we are a small country in a big Union - who are we to stop Europe moving forward.

    And I wonder, if the first vote was taken in the Economic situation that we are in now.... would we have voted no!! I mean we have a great history of voting no (the first time) in times of Economic Success but we have an equally great history of voting yes in the first count in times of Economic Depression!!

    Just my two cents.... let the debate ensue...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    Plus Cowen publicly saying he didn't read the Treaty and had no intention of reading it didn't help the "Yes" cause either.
    I’d be amazed if he ever said any such thing.
    I know how it "bloody works", I just don't agree with it, and I don't think it's right that you can overturn the people's vote because you don't like the result.
    Whose vote is being overturned?
    The reality is is that we are never going to have a "No to Lisbon" supporter party in Government...
    What does that say about the electorate? What does that say about the ‘No’ campaign?
    My friends didn't need any campaigns, they voted on the treaty...
    If the majority of voters did the same then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    I know how it "bloody works", I just don't agree with it, and I don't think it's right that you can overturn the people's vote because you don't like the result.

    That's a very slanted way of putting it, though. Who can overturn the people's vote? Do you mean that the government will reverse the referendum result by fiat?

    The people might reverse the referendum result by voting differently - but how is that "overturning the people's vote"?
    And when is this next referendum? Before October? I still haven't seen anything by the Government to help push the Yes vote. They can't sit on their arse and hope for the right result because that has failed many times before.

    True that.
    The reality is is that we are never going to have a "No to Lisbon" supporter party in Government, so we wouldn't even get the chance to vote on it again if it was originally a Yes result. It would have been signed and ratified in a heartbeat, regardless of how the result was reached, be it by people's knowledge of the treaty or lack-of.

    I never said it was undemocratic or bullying. I said it is unfair for the people who have to vote again, regardless of what they voted for. I know a few people who are cheesed off at the fact they have to vote again, and they are Yes voters. They think it's an absolute joke.

    I'm not sure why it's such a surprise. The government wants to ratify LIsbon, and they're entitled to ask the people to allow them to do so. They don't have to back off the moment things go against them - if government policy is defeated in a Dáil vote or at a referendum it doesn't mean the government has to change its policy.
    My friends didn't need any campaigns, they voted on the treaty, not what the posters and leaflets said. So I don't know who's being dishonest, nor do I care. The fact is is that the Government is biased and have made us look like fools. "The majority of the public didn't know what they were voting on" was the usual pish spouted by Cowen while Sarkozy prodded him, yet you'd find Yes voters voting on things that don't concern the treaty directly, like "Europe has been good to us".

    Whatever the government says, it remains the case that a lot of voters didn't feel they knew enough about the Treaty. Sure the Yes side wouldn't have minded that if the result had been a Yes - but the No side isn't troubled by it either, as long as it delivered the right result for them, which it did.

    It's also true that objective levels of knowledge of the EU are not exactly great in Ireland, which is rather disturbing for a vote on modifying the EU.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,889 ✭✭✭evercloserunion


    If we got a Yes result, yet people didn't know what they voted for, would we be sitting here wondering when we would have to vote again? No, because it was the result they wanted regardless of how they got it.

    I find it unfair that my friends have to vote again because they "didn't understand it". No, they didn't read the Libertas crap. They read the treaty, understood it, but didn't agree with most of it.

    I sway between Yes and No regularly, but I will abstain from voting.
    Your friends are in the stark minority of people, unfortunately.

    Also, the difference between voting Yes despite not knowing much about the Treaty, and voting No despite not knowing about it, is that if the unknowledgable Yes voters learned more about the Treaty they'd probably still vote Yes.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    DJCR wrote: »
    2ndly, as already mentioned, we are a small country in a big Union - who are we to stop Europe moving forward.

    All the other countries agreed that change to treaties would only happen by unanimous decision. the 26 have given us the power to hold them back. What if the majority here wanted the Constitution instead but France held us back?

    At least all of Ireland is actually in Europe, not like France.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭r14


    All the other countries agreed that change to treaties would only happen by unanimous decision. the 26 have given us the power to hold them back. What if the majority here wanted the Constitution instead but France held us back?

    True but there's nothing to stop them giving us the heave-ho and continuing in our absence. In my opinion if we vote No again our position in Europe would be untenable.

    Everyone else wants to continue with the European project but we would want to stay put. Solution: a divorce citing irreconcilable differences.
    At least all of Ireland is actually in Europe, not like France.

    Are you talking about the DOM-TOM? If you are you may be interested to know that the Departments Outre Mer are integral parts of the European Union. They use the euro and elect MEPs.

    Really I don't see how the territorial organisation of another Member State is really any concern of ours.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    All the other countries agreed that change to treaties would only happen by unanimous decision.
    ...which is why the treaties haven't been changed yet.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    I sway between Yes and No regularly, but I will abstain from voting.

    What exactly will that acheive? And why do you sway between Yes and No out of curiosity?
    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    Plus Cowen publicly saying he didn't read the Treaty and had no intention of reading it didn't help the "Yes" cause either.

    I didn't think it was Cowen that said that, was it? Either way I wouldn't blame him. He has legal advisors that do that for him. A manager in a bank doesn't sign off on every last decision in the bank, (s)he delegates responsibility to those who are qualified to make certain decisions. That's the job of management. That's exactly what Cowen should be doing. He doesn't have time in a job like that to read every last page of every last piece of legislation. To expect that is madness.
    I don't think it's right that you can overturn the people's vote because you don't like the result.

    As Scofflaw has pointed out the only ones who can overturn the peoples result is the people. What's wrong with that?
    And when is this next referendum? Before October? I still haven't seen anything by the Government to help push the Yes vote. They can't sit on their arse and hope for the right result because that has failed many times before.

    Agreed, although given the other issues we're facing at the moment I can see how it has taken a back-seat.
    The reality is is that we are never going to have a "No to Lisbon" supporter party in Government

    That alone should tell you everything you need to know. If people aren't willing to vote the No groups into Government why the hell would they listen to them about something like Lisbon? The fact of the matter is that the only ones who opposed Lisbon were the extremists and the shady groups like Libertas. All union and employers groups supported it and all parties that stand a snowballs chance in hell of ever being elected to Government supported it. So why were we swayed by the opposition on this issue when we aren't on any others?
    I never said it was undemocratic or bullying. I said it is unfair for the people who have to vote again, regardless of what they voted for. I know a few people who are cheesed off at the fact they have to vote again, and they are Yes voters. They think it's an absolute joke.

    I don't think it's a joke that I'm being asked for my position again. I take my participation in democracy very seriously and if another vote is required then I am in full support of it. Before the referendum itself I was saying another one was needed regardless of the result because at that stage it was clear that most people had no idea what they were voting on at all. The amount of ignorance I came across on internet forums and in face to face conversations was staggering. Another vote needs to be preceeded by a campaign to educate the public. If done right this will ensure the peoples will is done, and that is no joke.
    My friends didn't need any campaigns, they voted on the treaty, not what the posters and leaflets said. So I don't know who's being dishonest, nor do I care. The fact is is that the Government is biased and have made us look like fools.

    The Governments bias did not make us look like fools. In fact had they not been biased that would have! After all they were involved in drafting the Treaty themselves, and they agreed to it. To sit on the fence then would look a bit ridiculous. What made us look like fools was the Governments Yes campaign and the fact that we voted No without really knowing why.
    "The majority of the public didn't know what they were voting on" was the usual pish spouted by Cowen while Sarkozy prodded him, yet you'd find Yes voters voting on things that don't concern the treaty directly, like "Europe has been good to us".

    Probably true, but surely that's not a reason against voting again, but more a reason in favour of it. After all, don't we want to be sure that the people's will on the Treaty be done?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,108 ✭✭✭Lirange


    molloyjh wrote: »
    And why do you sway between Yes and No out of curiosity?
    Didn't you know? Fashions come and go with the seasons.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11 osurdivol


    All the other countries agreed that change to treaties would only happen by unanimous decision. the 26 have given us the power to hold them back. What if the majority here wanted the Constitution instead but France held us back?

    At least all of Ireland is actually in Europe, not like France.

    It is ludicrous to have 4 million people deciding the fate of 500 million. To have a situation where the fate of all European citizens is being interfered with because people in Ireland voted No as much to express their anger at Fianna Fail as anything else. Where would we be if it wasn't for the EU, we are lucky to be getting a second chance at this referendum and hopefully the silent majority will come out in stronger forces than the vocal minority this time round. We are in enough economic trouble as it is and if we vote No again we can look forward to a serious collapse in confidence in our economy and even less international money flowing through our system.


Advertisement