Why voting no?

Ellie The Mess

Yes, I know, there are probably about a million other threads on this subject but, indeed, I do feel the need to start a new one because, well, I started getting a little bit confused after, having read the 100th page on other threads, nobody had really told me what the reasons for a no vote were yet.

So I'm asking you, people of Ireland, why should an Irish person go and vote no in October even when the protocol is passed?

Rb

If this forum represents the people of Ireland, I am terrified for its future.

Ellie The Mess

Rb wrote: »

If this forum represents the people of Ireland, I am terrified for its future.

I was just indirectly saying that I am not part of the People of Ireland

conchubhar1

the veto is the only through safeguard or power we have in the eu

we loose it in many areas

Scofflaw

conchubhar1 wrote: »

the veto is the only through safeguard or power we have in the eu

we loose it in many areas

Here's the list of those areas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

conchubhar1

indeed

Pat Mustard

Ellie The Mess wrote: »

nobody had really told me what the reasons for a no vote were yet.

http://www.dfa.ie/home/index.aspx?id=73360. The Minister remarked that the survey shows that people felt they did not have enough clear information in the run-up to voting day. This lack of information was the single biggest reason given for the decision to vote No or to abstain on 12 June. For example, more than four in every ten people who voted against the Treaty said they had voted No due to a lack of information which gave rise to genuine concerns about what they were being asked to vote on.

Ellie The Mess wrote: »

So I'm asking you, people of Ireland, why should an Irish person go and vote no in October even when the protocol is passed?

My opinion is that we were already asked to vote on this. We voted. We are now being asked to vote again. I don't think that it's very democratic to be made to vote again, until we vote the way the government wants us to vote. I am going to vote no for that reason.

RandomName2

Voting no because this constitutional ammending treaty has been rejected in three referenda (and would be rejected in a fourth if UK got a vote)

conchubhar1

it has been rejected by one and would be rejected by another should the uk vote

the other 2 votes were on the constitution - i do slightly agree with your sentiment tho

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

Voting no because this constitutional ammending treaty has been rejected in three referenda (and would be rejected in a fourth if UK got a vote)

If we were the first country to vote on it, how would you vote?

turgon

Notice Ellie The Mess how only one post so far has actually mentioned something in the Treaty. Otherwise we get the usual stuff of "more referenda = undemocratic" nonsense that has absolutely nothing to do with the Treaty.

In October you will be asked to vote on a proposal. The best way to evaluate this proposal is to pick the situation before (the EU under Nice) and the situation after (the EU under Lisbon), and see which one you prefer.

People here have said to vote No because we have been asked to vote twice. Or vote No because another EU Treaty was rejected. Well them voting No will not change this at all. They have effectively wasted their vote. The irony is, of course, that these people champion themselves as defenders of democracy, yet the attitude they take towards voting (ie not voting in an informed manner on relevant issues) is arguably the greatest failing of democracy.

P. Breathnach

When I see some of the arguments advanced here and elsewhere by the "no" camp, I become more and more convinced that some of them are on a kind of perverse power trip: they want a no vote because it would have a big impact, and the possibility that the consequences might be bad are less important than the fact that the consequences would be large.

Ellie The Mess

P. Breathnach wrote: »

When I see some of the arguments advanced here and elsewhere by the "no" camp, I become more and more convinced that some of them are on a kind of perverse power trip: they want a no vote because it would have a big impact, and the possibility that the consequences might be bad are less important than the fact that the consequences would be large.

That is exactly what I felt. I think it's so bad that the Lisbon Treaty will be re-voted on in October. Many people will not actually read the Treaty, will not understand it and therefore they either won't go voting or will vote no just because the Government have said people should vote yes.

turgon wrote: »

People here have said to vote No because we have been asked to vote twice. Or vote No because another EU Treaty was rejected. Well them voting No will not change this at all. They have effectively wasted their vote. The irony is, of course, that these people champion themselves as defenders of democracy, yet the attitude they take towards voting (ie not voting in an informed manner on relevant issues) is arguably the greatest failing of democracy.

Exactly, and another irony is that, championing themselves as defenders of democracy, they vote no the the one Treaty that brings more democracy into the Euraopen Union in terms of extention of the political influence and competencies of the Europen Parliament (which is and will be the only institution directly elected by the people)

ro09

Ellie The Mess wrote: »

Yes, I know, there are probably about a million other threads on this subject but, indeed, I do feel the need to start a new one because, well, I started getting a little bit confused after, having read the 100th page on other threads, nobody had really told me what the reasons for a no vote were yet.

So I'm asking you, people of Ireland, why should an Irish person go and vote no in October even when the protocol is passed?

I am voting no because I love my Country, I dont want to be Part of a United States of Europe where I will get very little say in the way my country is run or what laws are introduced. People who are making Plenty of money out of Europe will of course vote Yes to everything.

The more Treaties that are passed the more we loose control of our own affairs. Remember all EU law supersedes our Constitutional Law.

I dont think our Founders who gave their lives so we could have independance would be happy with us throwing this very independance away!

There are Plenty of Countries out there who are not in Europe and are individually doing very well indeed!

Lets keep our traditions and our way of life by saying no to the EU.

P. Breathnach

ro09 wrote: »

I am voting no because I love my Country, I dont want to be Part of a United States of Europe where I will get very little say in the way my country is run or what laws are introduced. People who are making Plenty of money out of Europe will of course vote Yes to everything.

The more Treaties that are passed the more we loose control of our own affairs. Remember all EU law supersedes our Constitutional Law.

I dont think our Founders who gave their lives so we could have independance would be happy with us throwing this very independance away!

There are Plenty of Countries out there who are not in Europe and are individually doing very well indeed!

Lets keep our traditions and our way of life by saying no to the EU.

What happens when we run out of turf?

Rb

P. Breathnach wrote: »

What happens when we run out of turf?

What does that have to do with the Treaty?

cooperguy

I am voting no because I love my Country, I dont want to be Part of a United States of Europe where I will get very little say in the way my country is run or what laws are introduced. People who are making Plenty of money out of Europe will of course vote Yes to everything.

The more Treaties that are passed the more we loose control of our own affairs. Remember all EU law supersedes our Constitutional Law.

I dont think our Founders who gave their lives so we could have independance would be happy with us throwing this very independance away!

There are Plenty of Countries out there who are not in Europe and are individually doing very well indeed!

Lets keep our traditions and our way of life by saying no to the EU.

All European law that we agree to with a referendum supersedes Irish law. So what specifically is your problem with these laws?

And we have all made plenty of money from Europe whether it be through being employed in 1 of the thousands of jobs created by our membership of the EU or any one of the projects funded by EU grants that we use every day.

Also where exactly does this change our traditions?

Surely you have a better argument than misguided patriotism?

Mario007

conchubhar1 wrote: »

the veto is the only through safeguard or power we have in the eu

we loose it in many areas

ireland used veto once in 35 years...yeah lots of power being lost there. besides veto is one of the most undemocratic mechanisms out there, and democracy is the big arguement for the 'no' side

The Mustard wrote: »

http://www.dfa.ie/home/index.aspx?id=73360. The Minister remarked that the survey shows that people felt they did not have enough clear information in the run-up to voting day. This lack of information was the single biggest reason given for the decision to vote No or to abstain on 12 June. For example, more than four in every ten people who voted against the Treaty said they had voted No due to a lack of information which gave rise to genuine concerns about what they were being asked to vote on.



My opinion is that we were already asked to vote on this. We voted. We are now being asked to vote again. I don't think that it's very democratic to be made to vote again, until we vote the way the government wants us to vote. I am going to vote no for that reason.

its your opinion and you're entitled to it, but just to point out one thing the second referendum is democratic and legitimate, its just like any other law that wants to be passed by the government out there...it can be reintroduce

RandomName2 wrote: »

Voting no because this constitutional ammending treaty has been rejected in three referenda (and would be rejected in a fourth if UK got a vote)

ro09 wrote: »

I am voting no because I love my Country, I dont want to be Part of a United States of Europe where I will get very little say in the way my country is run or what laws are introduced. People who are making Plenty of money out of Europe will of course vote Yes to everything.

The more Treaties that are passed the more we loose control of our own affairs. Remember all EU law supersedes our Constitutional Law.

I dont think our Founders who gave their lives so we could have independance would be happy with us throwing this very independance away!

There are Plenty of Countries out there who are not in Europe and are individually doing very well indeed!

Lets keep our traditions and our way of life by saying no to the EU.

i dont agree with you, but you're one of the first people to come out and quite boldly said what you don't like, so i say well done.

P. Breathnach

Rb wrote: »

What does that have to do with the Treaty?

Quite a lot, really, albeit indirectly.

Rb

cooperguy wrote: »

All European law that we agree to with a referendum supersedes Irish law. So what specifically is your problem with these laws?

And we have all made plenty of money from Europe whether it be through being employed in 1 of the thousands of jobs created by our membership of the EU or any one of the projects funded by EU grants that we use every day.

Also where exactly does this change our traditions?

Surely you have a better argument than misguided patriotism?

The hope that the EU will be an economical union, not a political one (or a superstate), is as valid a reason as any really.

Rb

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Quite a lot, really, albeit indirectly.

So you're admitting it has nothing to do with the text?

P. Breathnach

Rb wrote: »

So you're admitting it has nothing to do with the text?

Turf is not, so far as I can recall, mentioned in the text of the treaty. Neither are many of the other things that people have expressed worries about. The treaty is essentially concerned about arrangements for dealing with things. Energy is one of the things that is, and will continue to be, a major concern that will need to be dealt with.

Mario007

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Quite a lot, really, albeit indirectly.

no, its more to do with the eu as a whole. but really i guess what we should be deciding is not, yes or no to lisbon, but rather do we want lisbon or nice? cos thats really the choice at the end of the day. this isnt about whether or not we like eu or the way it works but if we want nice or lisbon

askitnice

What is really starting to get to me is the amount of bulls**t and fear mongering being put out by the yes campaign, and its on this forum to.

Simply put another NO vote does NOT mean that we have to leave the EU or the Euro, it just means Lisbon can not be implemented and we use existing treaty's.

In fact at te moment there is no way we can be kicked out of EU without our Goverment specifically asking for it/voting for it which will not happen.

cooperguy

askitnice wrote: »

Simply put another NO vote does NOT mean that we have to leave the EU or the Euro, it just means Lisbon can not be implemented and we use existing treaty's.
.

Nobody said that!

Mario007

askitnice wrote: »

What is really starting to get to me is the amount of bulls**t and fear mongering being put out by the yes campaign, and its on this forum to.

Simply put another NO vote does NOT mean that we have to leave the EU or the Euro, it just means Lisbon can not be implemented and we use existing treaty's.

In fact at te moment there is no way we can be kicked out of EU without our Goverment specifically asking for it/voting for it which will not happen.

i agree this demagogy must end, and that goes to both camps...use facts from the treaty...i mean its easy enough to argue with the factual evidence so stick to it

P. Breathnach

askitnice wrote: »

What is really starting to get to me is the amount of bulls**t and fear mongering being put out by the yes campaign, and its on this forum to.

Simply put another NO vote does NOT mean that we have to leave the EU or the Euro, it just means Lisbon can not be implemented and we use existing treaty's.

In fact at te moment there is no way we can be kicked out of EU without our Goverment specifically asking for it/voting for it which will not happen.

If we vote no to Lisbon, we will frustrate the ambitions of every other member of the EU. In a world where alliances are essential, it is not a good thing to be friendless.

One of the reasons why Ireland has done so well out of membership of the EEC/EC/EU is that we have been (mostly correctly) seen as "good Europeans". It is an advantage that we should not throw away lightly.

I have yet to see a downside to the Lisbon Treaty that outweighs the benefits to us of being an EU member in good standing.

Riskymove

there are always going to be issues raised that have nothing to do with treaty or misconstrued so as to cause fear in people

In the last referendum a big fuss was made about Ireland not always having a commissioner..I mean..so what?...you'd swear it was some important position for Ireland with important repurcussions for Ireland rather than just a well-paid plum role for some political person

I mean people voting no over this? ....can't understand it

no, does our Governemnt try and defend the proposal (a good one imo)..no..lets just get the EU to scrap it


and the other issues, taxation etc...last time they told us treaty has nothing to do with these issues, people still vote no...now we have them saying..look, they really have nothing to do with treaty, we swear and these EU heads agree and they swear too....what's the difference

they are just going down the same route as far as i can see. No attempt to really explain the treaty or discuss issues..lets just get rid of issues people seemed to be concerned about last time

askitnice

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If we vote no to Lisbon, we will frustrate the ambitions of every other member of the EU. In a world where alliances are essential, it is not a good thing to be friendless.

One of the reasons why Ireland has done so well out of membership of the EEC/EC/EU is that we have been (mostly correctly) seen as "good Europeans". It is an advantage that we should not throw away lightly.

I have yet to see a downside to the Lisbon Treaty that outweighs the benefits to us of being an EU member in good standing.

More alarmist crap, the funding we recieve from EU is only dependent on us being members and having qualified infrastructure projects same as any other EU member. Not that we're seen as good europeans, what a childish argument, be a good country or else.. or else what? We can not be removed we still have veto powers etc...

You allude to funding being cut or us removed from EU, how exactly are the EU going to punish us, they cannot remove us, they cannot specifically target Ireland with cuts in funding unless its across the board throughout the EU.

Our refusal of this treaty did not and will not make us bad Europeans as you say, just democratic ones. You sound very alarmist "what happens when turf runs out" blah blah blah... Turf!! what year do you think it is 1909.

hobochris

Riskymove wrote: »

there are always going to be issues raised that have nothing to do with treaty or misconstrued so as to cause fear in people

In the last referendum a big fuss was made about Ireland not always having a commissioner..I mean..so what?...you'd swear it was some important position for Ireland with important repurcussions for Ireland rather than just a well-paid plum role for some political person

I mean people voting no over this? ....can't understand it

no, does our Governemnt try and defend the proposal (a good one imo)..no..lets just get the EU to scrap it


and the other issues, taxation etc...last time they told us treaty has nothing to do with these issues, people still vote no...now we have them saying..look, they really have nothing to do with treaty, we swear and these EU heads agree and they swear too....what's the difference

they are just going down the same route as far as i can see. No attempt to really explain the treaty or discuss issues..lets just get rid of issues people seemed to be concerned about last time

Have you looked into the qualified majority voting system that this treaty will implement? that alone IMO justifies a no vote. we are essentially having the volume tuned down on our voice in the European union.

The impression I get from the people in favor of a yes vote is that we should be a good little country and dance to the EU's tune.

I wont dance, I don't like this song.

P. Breathnach

askitnice wrote: »

More alarmist crap, the funding we recieve from EU is only dependent on us being members and having qualified infrastructure projects same as any other EU member. Not that we're seen as good europeans, what a childish argument, be a good country or else.. or else what? We can not be removed we still have veto powers etc...

That's not much of an answer; it's merely abuse and grotesque extrapolation of what I said in order to suggest things that I didn't say..

You allude to funding being cut or us removed from EU, how exactly are the EU going to punish us, they cannot remove us, they cannot specifically target Ireland with cuts in funding unless its across the board throughout the EU.

I made no such allusion. And yes, the EU can be influenced by national interests in the way it constructs its schemes.

Our refusal of this treaty did not and will not make us bad Europeans as you say, just democratic ones.

I said nothing one way or the other about us being good Europeans. I did comment on how we are seen in Europe.

You sound very alarmist "what happens when turf runs out" blah blah blah... Turf!! what year do you think it is 1909.

I see that you are as familiar with irony as you are with truth.

So much for condemning the bull**** put out by the yes camp.

Mario007

hobochris wrote: »

Have you looked into the qualified majority voting system that this treaty will implement? that alone IMO justifies a no vote. we are essentially having the volume tuned down on our voice in the European union.

The impression I get from the people in favor of a yes vote is that we should be a good little country and dance to the EU's tune.

I wont dance, I don't like this song.

whats wrong about the qualified majority? it makes sure that france, germany and britain cant push through issues even if they all ally together and it ensures that EU wont have to wait 2 years to reach an agreement on an issue but can be dynamic. And its more democratic than the veto. Plus when small countries get together they can outvote the big countries and push through the interest of small countries

molloyjh

hobochris wrote: »

Have you looked into the qualified majority voting system that this treaty will implement? that alone IMO justifies a no vote. we are essentially having the volume tuned down on our voice in the European union.

The impression I get from the people in favor of a yes vote is that we should be a good little country and dance to the EU's tune.

I wont dance, I don't like this song.

It does not half our voting weight hobochris. It changes the method by which QMV is run so that it looks at 2 aspects.

1. Population Size - we would be just under 0.9% in this regard. This is slightly less than half our voting weight.
2. Membership - all memeber states are equal, therefore our voting weight is over 3% in this regard. That's about 50% more than the current weight.

Combined these two aspects leave us pretty much as is. There are also additional aspects regarding the number of states needed to block legislation that has been brought in to ensure that the big states can't gang up on the small. On top of all that it is now also a dynamic system and won't have to be revisited every time a new member joins.

turgon

To the OP: see the way that since post #4 there have been no Treaty related resons for a No.

Post #30 (that QMV is disadvantageous to Ireland) was firmly debunked last year asfaik, when a Boardsie ran a computer program simulating all possible voting outcomes and discovered that QMV made little or no difference to Ireland. Scofflaw or sink might be in a position to find it, I forget the name of the poster who did it.

ro09 wrote: »

I am voting no because I love my Country, I dont want to be Part of a United States of Europe where I will get very little say in the way my country is run or what laws are introduced. People who are making Plenty of money out of Europe will of course vote Yes to everything.

You see, the Lisbon Treaty gives this guy more of a say through a) Citizens Initiative and b) more power to the MEP's he has elected.

But no, instead he has sought the full ideal. But the fact is that Ireland will be in the EU regardless of whether there is a No or a Yes vote. So his persons ballot is based on issues that wont be effected by the outcome, and thus squandered.

Rb wrote: »

What does that have to do with the Treaty?

Of all posters on Boards, you are the one in the last position to demand reference to the Treaty. If the Treaty was rushed so as to avoid a British vote, you have stated you would vote No solely on that. Please stop this pretense that you actually care about the content of Lisbon.

Rb

turgon wrote: »

Of all posters on Boards, you are the one in the last position to demand reference to the Treaty. If the Treaty was rushed so as to avoid a British vote, you have stated you would vote No solely on that. Please stop this pretense that you actually care about the content of Lisbon.

What I was hinting at is the whole Yes side saying "THEY VOTED FOR REASONS THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TREATY!!!HURRR!!!" and then going and encouraging people to do the very same thing, only in their "sides" favour.

I have my issues with the treaty itself, which I voted against last time, this time around though I'm voting for non-treaty reasons and don't really care if people have a problem with that. It's hypocritical for the "yes side" to bang on about the No voters voting for the wrong reasons and then trying to supply them with another bucket of wrong reasons, albeit in their favour, to choose from when voting this time.

I can still demand reference to the treaty though if the Yes side want to maintain this "We voted based on what the treaty said" pretense though.

Sure look at my signature, encouraging people to vote for reasons that have nothing to do with the text itself but sure most of the propaganda from both sides on the run up to his referendum will have nothing to with the treaty, again. It'll be scaremongering left right and centre and the indirect "threats" that result from either a Yes or No.

No denying that really so may as well embrace it, however as I said if "Yes" voters are going to keep up their pretentious "intelligence" and knowledge of the treaty, and remain lambasting No voters for voting for reasons that aren't in the treaty text, then I'll remain asking for their clarification as to where in the treaty they're getting their points from.

K-9

turgon wrote: »

Post #30 (that QMV is disadvantageous to Ireland) was firmly debunked last year asfaik, when a Boardsie ran a computer program simulating all possible voting outcomes and discovered that QMV made little or no difference to Ireland. Scofflaw or sink might be in a position to find it, I forget the name of the poster who did it.

Think it was taken from Politics.ie. We lost weighting to some of the larger countries and gained over some of the medium sized countries. Overall it more or less balanced out.

The weighting is only important if people think the big countries will run the EU against smaller countries interests. It doesn't work like. Hell, sure the big countries often can't agree between themselves, eg. France, Germany and the UK.

tonycascarino

Even though YES campaigners are trying to sell off this treaty as being the best thing since sliced bread while purposely ignoring the cons, here are possibly just some reasons one might say NO.


1. Guarantees promised are not legally binding - Treaty remains exactly the same

The guarantees promised are neither legally binding nor can ever be. The important point is that the Lisbon Treaty remains exactly the same. Not a single comma in the 100's of pages has been altered. No European country will have to ratify Lisbon again, which they would have had to do if anything had changed in law. To call the guarantees legally binding is simply false and less than honest. Only the words of the treaty itself count in the European Courts.


2. Ireland's role in Europe will diminish
If the Treaty is passed unchanged - that is the treaty the Irish people rejected last year - Ireland's role & influence in Europe will diminish severely. The Lisbon Treaty as it stands creates a fundamental change in the country's governance, with European Law taking precedence over our Constitution in most areas.


Germany's voting weight on the EU Council of Ministers will rise to 17% from it's previous 8%. France's vote will go from 8% to 13% & Britain and Italy's will rise from their current 8% to 12%. However Ireland's voting weight will be halved from 2% to 0.8%.


3. No respect of democracy

Whether YES campaigners like it or not, most Irish people will see the ignoring of the last vote as a disrespect of the people's will and therefore disrespect shown to democracy. YES campaigners will have a hard time trying to convince the ordinary Irish person otherwise.

oscarBravo

tonycascarino wrote: »

1. Guarantees promised are not legally binding - Treaty remains exactly the same

The guarantees promised are neither legally binding nor can ever be. The important point is that the Lisbon Treaty remains exactly the same. Not a single comma in the 100's of pages has been altered. No European country will have to ratify Lisbon again, which they would have had to do if anything had changed in law. To call the guarantees legally binding is simply false and less than honest. Only the words of the treaty itself count in the European Courts.

Yes, the treaty itself remains the same, but no, it's not true to say the guarantees are not legally binding. Pointless and unnecessary, maybe, but still legally binding.

2. Ireland's role in Europe will diminish

If the Treaty is passed unchanged - that is the treaty the Irish people rejected last year - Ireland's role & influence in Europe will diminish severely. The Lisbon Treaty as it stands creates a fundamental change in the country's governance, with European Law taking precedence over our Constitution in most areas.


Germany's voting weight on the EU Council of Ministers will rise to 17% from it's previous 8%. France's vote will go from 8% to 13% & Britain and Italy's will rise from their current 8% to 12%. However Ireland's voting weight will be halved from 2% to 0.8%.

Been debunked. If you're going to throw around myths, you could at least come up with some original ones.

3. No respect of democracy

Whether YES campaigners like it or not, most Irish people will see the ignoring of the last
vote as a disrespect of the people's will and therefore disrespect shown to democracy.

The last vote wasn't ignored - we haven't ratified the treaty.

I suppose I should get tired of refuting the same tired non-arguments over and over again, but people don't ever seem to get tired of trotting them out.

Pat Mustard

oscarBravo wrote: »

I suppose I should get tired of refuting the same tired non-arguments over and over again, but people don't ever seem to get tired of trotting them out.

I suppose I should get tired of voting to reject the same tired treaty again, but this pesky government just won't take no for an answer.

Zuiderzee

Its crap that the Government send us back to give them the answer they want - why not run the European elections again so we pick Eoin Ryan - same bloody principle.

Its undemocratic, no one else among our fellow European citizens have been given a choice in this version.
When they were given a choice, France and the Netherlands said no.
We have already said no.

Let the politicians give us a Lisbon treaty that we can understand and that we want, not what those assholes want.

And I do not believe that parliamentary ratification as a way around the issue is a democratic process as someone here suggested.

I would not vote Libertas, but they were against Lisbon.

I dont need to agree with all a parties policies, and Lisbon ratification is one of them.

P. Breathnach

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Its crap that the Government send us back to give them the answer they want - why not run the European elections again so we pick Eoin Ryan - same bloody principle.

Its undemocratic, no one else among our fellow European citizens have been given a choice in this version.
When they were given a choice, France and the Netherlands said no.
We have already said no.

Let the politicians give us a Lisbon treaty that we can understand and that we want, not what those assholes want.

And I do not believe that parliamentary ratification as a way around the issue is a democratic process as someone here suggested.

I would not vote Libertas, but they were against Lisbon.

I dont need to agree with all a parties policies, and Lisbon ratification is one of them.

It's refreshing to hear new arguments rather than the same old ones repeated once more.

KermitTheFrog

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Its crap that the Government send us back to give them the answer they want - why not run the European elections again so we pick Eoin Ryan - same bloody principle.

Its undemocratic, no one else among our fellow European citizens have been given a choice in this version.
When they were given a choice, France and the Netherlands said no.
We have already said no.

Let the politicians give us a Lisbon treaty that we can understand and that we want, not what those assholes want.

And I do not believe that parliamentary ratification as a way around the issue is a democratic process as someone here suggested.

I would not vote Libertas, but they were against Lisbon.

I dont need to agree with all a parties policies, and Lisbon ratification is one of them.

I agree wholeartedly and I will be voting NO. From what I can see from the majority of YES campaigners is that they think we owe it to the EU to vote YES. They are like lemmings charging over a cliff determined to blindly support this treaty no matter what.

oscarBravo

KermitTheFrog wrote: »

I agree wholeartedly and I will be voting NO. From what I can see from the majority of YES campaigners is that they think we owe it to the EU to vote YES. They are like lemmings charging over a cliff determined to blindly support this treaty no matter what.

Unlike those "no" campaigners who have independently and without any prompting arrived at precisely the same set of unfounded myths on which to base their objections.

KINGVictor

oscarBravo wrote: »

Unlike those "no" campaigners who have independently and without any prompting arrived at precisely the same set of unfounded myths on which to base their objections.

I dont agree with you.Some of the people opposing the Lisbon treaty are doing so, based on their personal convictions and logical conclusions as to what directions they feel would be most ideal for the concept of the EU and they feel a treaty that is going to give directives that would invariably supercede national laws would be unacceptable.

I recently have found myself working in the procurement dept of my organisation and they have to adhere to strict regulations from Brussels on how to issue tenders for contracts,deal with suppliers and conduct market engagement.
Effectively,this implies that if my Organisation wants to purchase an equipment or materials urgently..under the EU law ...as long as that product exceeds a certain amount stipulated by the EU,we are mandated to publish this at the central EU procurement website for a period of time even though we have reliable and cost effective suppliers locally.
We have to wait for quotations from Bulgaria,Poland,France etc and show we were not discriminatory in the selection process or we could be liable to sanctions or litigation .
This has a lot of red tape effects on our operations and inevitably costs us money and time.

I have not read the whole Lisbon treaty but in terms of Procurement practises it is even going to be more complex....as would a host of other processes.This does not make governance or business easier ..as variably claimed by YES campaigners.

Based on the above and other various undemocratic and ambiguious practises of the EU ...I would unrepentantly be voting NO and not be tempted otherwise because of the scaremongering of those who suggest that Ireland would be punished if we vote NO...if that is the case then that would not be a good association to belong to...They punish those who do not do as they are told...there would be very little difference between Zimbabwe/ Iran and such a body.

humanji

Where in the treaty does it refer to procurement policy?

BlitzKrieg

I dont agree with you.Some of the people opposing the Lisbon treaty are doing so, based on their personal convictions and logical conclusions as to what directions they feel would be most ideal for the concept of the EU and they feel a treaty that is going to give directives that would invariably supercede national laws would be unacceptable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TMf1pImjlE

P. Breathnach

humanji wrote: »

Where in the treaty does it refer to procurement policy?

On the same page where it deals with turf shortages.

CCCP^

I voted No last time because I felt the treaty was vague in it's language and would place too much power in the hands of a few. It's bad enough getting politicians in this country to do things right, imagine what it would be like getting Brussels to do anything?

This time around, I'm conflicted. I don't think, like some people, that are current economic condition would improve, but we don't want to get isolated, and we don't have the proper statesman who could negotiate Ireland through a No result. But then I just want to vote No because I already voted No and they've got cheek to trample on democracy like this.

KINGVictor

humanji wrote: »

Where in the treaty does it refer to procurement policy?

Article 18



The contracting authority (public body) granting the special or exclusive right (service concession) must make sure that the principle of non-discrimination is adhered to by providing for it in the granting act:



Article 3
Granting of special or exclusive rights: non-discrimination clause

Where a contracting authority grants special or exclusive rights to carry out a public service activity to an entity other than such a contracting authority, the act by which that right is granted shall provide that, in respect of the supply contracts which it awards to third parties as part of its activities, the entity concerned must comply with the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of nationality.

KermitTheFrog

CCCP^ wrote: »

But then I just want to vote No because I already voted No and they've got cheek to trample on democracy like this.

Now just sit back & wait for the few YES men on this board attempt to belittle you as if you know nothing and try tell you that the Government and the EU were democratic about it.

Imposter

humanji wrote: »

Where in the treaty does it refer to procurement policy?

To all on the yes side especially - not just Humanji - but also the No side as well:
What can someone who does not like the direction the EU is going, do to stop it from going in that direction?

For example the following arguments:
- Too much bureaucracy
- EU law superceding national law
- EU turning/turned into a political union as opposed to an economic union
- The way this political power has such little respect for results of referenda either their own or those of other countries.