Sinn Fein officially says NO to Lisbon 2.

Run_to_da_hills

Not surprising at all that Sinn Fein has stuck to its policy of last year on a NO vote. Gerry Adams correctly quoted “The people said no. Exactly the same treaty is being presented once again.” he also stated that it was a "bad treaty" and put it to the people not to be swayed by propaganda and the current economic climate.

With Libertas gone Sinn Féin now looks set to be the only remaining well financed voice in the anti-Lisbon camp.

Last year, the party’s key arguments against the treaty were claims it would end Ireland’s automatic right to a commissioner, it would erode neutrality and undermine workers’ rights.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0810/breaking1.htm

ChocolateSauce

I think it is important to have at least one mainstream party against the treaty, I just wish they'd stop claiming they're "pro-Europe" when they've voted against every single EU treaty, including our accession; I'd have more respect for them.

pokerface_me

Hate to say it folks and i'm not a Sinn Fein man, but they have got this right for me, i don't understand voting on the same thing twice. If its NO this time round, will we just keep going till it becomes a YES vote.

worldrepublic

I am pro-Europe but we should listen to what Sinn Fein have to say, especially given the role they played in the NI peace process. There has been dramatic progress in Ireland, and all parties to the peace process contributed.

PopeBuckfastXVI

pokerface_me wrote: »

Hate to say it folks and i'm not a Sinn Fein man, but they have got this right for me, i don't understand voting on the same thing twice. If its NO this time round, will we just keep going till it becomes a YES vote.

If it's yes, would you consider it legitimate?

Purple Gorilla

It's not technically the same thing though. Yes the Treaty is the same but we now have legal guarantees this time to safeguard against any of the lies Sinn Fein used last time around so why vote no?

FutureTaoiseach

Fair play to them. No means no. This is the same Treaty we rejected last year. The Government never indicated it sought renegotiation, yet it claims it was impossible. This is the Cowen that, in front of the cameras, said "sorry" (literally) to the Eurocrats after Nice I. They give the impression of being Europe's men in Ireland, rather than the other way around.

pokerface_me

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

If it's yes, would you consider it legitimate?

Yes 100%, but it was NO last time round was that not legitimate.

PopeBuckfastXVI

pokerface_me wrote: »

Yes 100%, but it was NO last time round was that not legitimate.

The 'No' last time round was legitimate, and the Lisbon treaty, as far as I'm aware, has not been ratified by Ireland.

pokerface_me

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

The 'No' last time round was legitimate, and the Lisbon treaty, as far as I'm aware, has not been ratified by Ireland.

Then why are we voting again NO means NO.

worldrepublic

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

It's not technically the same thing though. Yes the Treaty is the same but we now have legal guarantees this time to safeguard against any of the lies Sinn Fein used last time around so why vote no?

There is a debate as to whether or not the "guarantees" are worthless. In any event, can we not stick to debating the actual content of the treaty?

Purple Gorilla

pokerface_me wrote: »

Then why are we voting again NO means NO.

Because the government went out and ask people why the voted no. The majority said that they didn't know about the Treaty or voted No based on reasons that weren't even in the Treaty itself.

Is it not fair to vote again on the Treaty after they spent so much time on it and it's so integral to the future of the EU, and we just voted no because of Abortian, Euthanasia, Conscription etc? None of which are in the treaty?

Btw it's not the EU that decided to run another referendum. It was the government. And you can slag fianna fail off all you want, but Fine Gael and Labour would have done the same thing.

PopeBuckfastXVI

pokerface_me wrote: »

Then why are we voting again NO means NO.

What if the balance of opinion has changed to yes?

You say a yes vote would be 100% legitimate, how can we find out if that legitimate yes vote exists if we don't have another referendum?

pokerface_me

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

Because the government went out and ask people why the voted no. The majority said that they didn't know.

Yep i believe that, that result suits the goverment, but i don't believe the MAJORITY didn't know what they were voting for. If the MAJORITY didn't know what they were voting for, i don't believe they would have turned up on the day and voted,

PopeBuckfastXVI

pokerface_me wrote: »

Yep i believe that, that result suits the goverment, but i don't believe the MAJORITY didn't know what they were voting for. If the MAJORITY didn't know what they were voting for, i don't believe they would have turned up on the day and voted,

If the majority, understood and still believes they should vote 'No' then in the second referendum 'No' it will be.

I personally don't believe the majority of 'No' voters didn't know what they were voting for, but if say 15% did, and they learn more, and decide to vote 'Yes' then that would change the result, no?

pokerface_me

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

What if the balance of opinion has changed to yes?

You say a yes vote would be 100% legitimate, how can we find out if that legitimate yes vote exists if we don't have another referendum?

If it can back a YES vote result, it wold 1 all, so we'd have to go again.

All joking aside if it comes back YES and it is for the good of the Country i'd accept it on the chin no problem.

PopeBuckfastXVI

pokerface_me wrote: »

If it can back a YES vote result, it wold 1 all, so we'd have to go again.

All joking aside if it comes back YES and it is for the good of the Country i'd accept it on the chin no problem.

I understand how someone who voted 'no' the first time would think it not fair to vote again, but I think that if the majority would vote 'yes' in October, it would not be fair to deny them that opportunity.

Both positions are probably reasonable.

Purple Gorilla

pokerface_me wrote: »

Yep i believe that, that result suits the goverment, but i don't believe the MAJORITY didn't know what they were voting for. If the MAJORITY didn't know what they were voting for, i don't believe they would have turned up on the day and voted,

Are you really suggesting that the government fixed the poll on why people didn't vote yes? That's extremely farfetched.

I'll ask you this, if you don't know anything about the treaty, but keep on hearing about abortion, conscription etc. what would you vote?

Btw, here is the Eurobarometer poll in question which should the majority of people voted no because they did not know what they were voting on

Frankiestylee

My major problem before was with the commisioner... that's now been resolved.

Most of the other issues have been resolved. It might be the same treaty but the same anti-treaty arguments don't stand.

It's a bit like a baby refusing a dirty soother, you wash and sterilise it and the baby still refuses it... there's no longer a reason to refuse it but the baby didn't want it the first time so he doesn't want it the next time.

pokerface_me

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

Are you really suggesting that the government fixed the poll on why people didn't vote yes? That's extremely farfetched.

I'll ask you this, if you don't know anything about the treaty, but keep on hearing about abortion, conscription etc. what would you vote?

Btw, here is the Eurobarometer poll in question which should the majority of people voted no because they did not know what they were voting on

I don't think my goverment fixed anything, well i hope not. The one thing i can get over is we voted NO,certain people couldn't accept this so they are making us vote again and giving 2 fingers to all you NO voters.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

Are you really suggesting that the government fixed the poll on why people didn't vote yes? That's extremely farfetched.

I'll ask you this, if you don't know anything about the treaty, but keep on hearing about abortion, conscription etc. what would you vote?

Btw, here is the Eurobarometer poll in question which should the majority of people voted no because they did not know what they were voting on

It would be quite stupid of the Government to make up false concerns and address them, while ignoring actual concerns, as they would fail to convert anyone from a 'No' to a 'Yes'.

Purple Gorilla

pokerface_me wrote: »

I don't think my goverment fixed anything, well i hope not. The one thing i can get over is we voted NO,certain people couldn't accept this so they are making us vote again and giving 2 fingers to all you NO voters.

But they aren't! If people vote no this time again, then that's the Lisbon Treaty gone. Buried.
It's a victory for No Voters, but a huge blow to Ireland. We're basically ostricising ourselves from Europe just because they are bitter that they have to vote again. The EU have given us guarantees so we aren't voting on the same thing. We are voting on the Lisbon Treaty AND the Legal Guarantees.

So why vote no?

Purple Gorilla

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It would be quite stupid of the Government to make up false concerns and address them, while ignoring actual concerns, as they would fail to convert anyone from a 'No' to a 'Yes'.

I believe the Lisbon Treaty White Paper should address any real concerns from anyone

Scofflaw

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

Are you really suggesting that the government fixed the poll on why people didn't vote yes? That's extremely farfetched.

I'll ask you this, if you don't know anything about the treaty, but keep on hearing about abortion, conscription etc. what would you vote?

Btw, here is the Eurobarometer poll in question which should the majority of people voted no because they did not know what they were voting on

It isn't just the case that the government wouldn't benefit from fixing the poll - it's more that the polling company, whose livelihood is dependent on their reputation for objective polls, would be mad to put their name to such a fixed poll. If word gets out that they fixed a poll, they might as well close the company. The corollary is that polls not done by professional polling organisations are probably worthless.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Frankiestylee wrote: »

My major problem before was with the commisioner... that's now been resolved.

Most of the other issues have been resolved. It might be the same treaty but the same anti-treaty arguments don't stand.

It's a bit like a baby refusing a dirty soother, you wash and sterilise it and the baby still refuses it... there's no longer a reason to refuse it but the baby didn't want it the first time so he doesn't want it the next time.

It's like any negotiation. Someone offers you a deal, and you turn it down on the basis that you have certain worries about it. If the person then goes and either addresses those worries, or offers you legally binding guarantees that those worries are groundless, it doesn't seem unreasonable to open the subject of the deal again.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

pokerface_me wrote: »

Then why are we voting again NO means NO.

I hate that phrase.

Its so strong and a wonderful catchphrase.

But honestly how true is it?

No means no...

now what?

Where was the flood of alternative suggestions to lisbon?

Sinn Fein to be fair laid out a series of issues that needed to be addressed post Lisbon 1. Which a thread on which could be found here (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56293339&postcount=1)

a number of which (but not all) were addressed (retaining the Commissioner and a new protocol on irish neutrality).

But where were the many other movements that rose to the challange of Lisbon?

Libertas disapeared for six months to resurface as a European party that proceeded to get spanked in the elections. And pretty much every other group just walked away back to their own affairs.

If you vote *no* for an Irish agenda or an European agenda you should be expected to step up and show an alternative in either or both areas.


No means No....but it is not a solution.

Until some group on the *no* campaign gets that through their head, No will mean nothing.

ChocolateSauce

Regarding the No means No catchphrase, my view on it is that No does mean No- and Lisbon hasn't been ratified. A large and detailed survey after the vote demonstrated quite clearly why the vote was no: the voters had concerns about the commissioner, neutrality, abortion, taxation, and so on. Those concerns (the reason for the no vote) have been addressed to what should have been the satisfaction of the no voters, and now that it is done the people who voted no for those reasons should now logically vote yes, and this is why a second vote is not only desirable but honourable.

The alternative is living with the legacy of a No vote based ultimately on ignorance of the contents of the treaty.

ei.sdraob

people of ireland officially say NO to SF criminal "Party"

oscarBravo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

people of ireland officially say NO to SF criminal "Party"

No, seriously: don't go there.

View

I wouldn't worry too much about SF. As soon as the get to have a Minister or two in Government (my money is on that happening prior to the run up to 2016), a lot of their anti-EU rhetoric will get dumped fairly quickly. After all, if they hold their noses and work with the DUP in the institutions of NI, becoming a "born again" pro-EU party will be easy for them...

worldrepublic

I found the Sinn Fein website, they have a number of downloadable documents, including the Treaty itself, and an Alternative guide to the Lisbon Treaty.
http://www.no2lisbon.ie/en/no-2-lisbon-treaty/entry/42

I think they have distributed 500,000 newsletters so far about Lisbon Treaty, so they obviously mean business.

I've been an emphatic Yes voter.... but having just read some of their arguments, I don't know.... I'm starting to change my mind... at home here we had gotten the Government guide to the treaty in the door, but looking at the alternative guide now, well, it's not really as simple as I thought. One thing is for sure, the run up to the vote is going to be something else.

PopeBuckfastXVI

worldrepublic wrote: »

I found the Sinn Fein website, they have a number of downloadable documents, including the Treaty itself, and an Alternative guide to the Lisbon Treaty.
http://www.no2lisbon.ie/en/no-2-lisbon-treaty/entry/42

I think they have distributed 500,000 newsletters so far about Lisbon Treaty, so they obviously mean business.

I've been an emphatic Yes voter.... but having just read some of their arguments, I don't know.... I'm starting to change my mind... at home here we had gotten the Government guide to the treaty in the door, but looking at the alternative guide now, well, it's not really as simple as I thought. One thing is for sure, the run up to the vote is going to be something else.

SF Alternative Guide wrote:

It cuts
our voting strength on the Council of Ministers by more than half and ends our
automatic right to a Commissioner. It erodes neutrality.

How old is this Shíte?

worldrepublic

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

How old is this Shíte?

Not very! 2008/2009 covers the period of debate.

PopeBuckfastXVI

worldrepublic wrote: »

Not very! 2008/2009 covers the period of debate.

It's severely out of date for L2.

worldrepublic

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It's severely out of date for L2.

Sinn Fein's position is that the Treaty has not changed "not one comma" as they say, during the period of the debate, i.e. 2008/2009. So you statement that the documentation is "severely" out of date seems to be an exaggeration to say the least.

They also say that the guarantees are worthless. The government, obviously, disagrees.

Simplifying the issues will not make them go away. And obviously a lot of voters are going to work through the arguments that Sinn Fein are putting forward in 500,000 documents for distribution. I am sure they are just getting ready to step this up. But on the other hand, the government is putting out their side of the argument too, so its all good from the point of view of democracy, right? Next month is going to be amazing. Gosh, only seven weeks to go.

oscarBravo

worldrepublic wrote: »

Sinn Fein's position is that the Treaty has not changed "not one comma" as they say...

They also say that the guarantees are worthless.

...

Simplifying the issues will not make them go away.

Doesn't stop Sinn Féin from trying it.

"Nothing whatsoever has changed, vote no again" - it's a nice straightforward policy platform, with the fact that it's completely untrue being only a minor inconvenience.

worldrepublic

oscarBravo wrote: »

Doesn't stop Sinn Féin from trying it.

"Nothing whatsoever has changed, vote no again" - it's a nice straightforward policy platform, with the fact that it's completely untrue being only a minor inconvenience.

"minor inconvenience"?

You seem to be overly confident. There is going to be discussion and debate, like it or not: voters want access to both campaigns. Next month will be amazing.

Imposter

I'm beginning to think that the next (few) referendums that Ireland needs is to change the constitution so that no more referendums are needed! After all what's the point in voting if you have to have the referendum over and over until we agree with the government. It just ends up costing money in terms of having the campaigns and holding the votes. Perhaps if >30% of the dail are against it it might make sense to hold a referendum but otherwise its hard to see how even the most stupid of governments couldn't get a vote through eventually especailly with the backing of all or most of the major parties!

worldrepublic

Imposter wrote: »

I'm beginning to think that the next (few) referendums that Ireland needs is to change the constitution so that no more referendums are needed! After all what's the point in voting if you have to have the referendum over and over until we agree with the government. It just ends up costing money in terms of having the campaigns and holding the votes. Perhaps if >30% of the dail are against it it might make sense to hold a referendum but otherwise its hard to see how even the most stupid of governments couldn't get a vote through eventually especailly with the backing of all or most of the major parties!

No, I believe that referendums are necessary. It means we value the constitution, and see it as an important check on political agendas, or political pockets!

RandomName2

Imposter wrote: »

I'm beginning to think that the next (few) referendums that Ireland needs is to change the constitution so that no more referendums are needed! [...] Perhaps if >30% of the dail are against it it might make sense to hold a referendum but otherwise its hard to see how even the most stupid of governments couldn't get a vote through eventually especailly with the backing of all or most of the major parties!

Should stop having elections while we're at it. I'm sure a Dail majority would support that idea :rolleyes: [i.e. current government]

PopeBuckfastXVI

I can't really see a case for permanent government, but I do think there's a case to be made for allowing the government of the day to ratify complex international treaties.

Scofflaw

Imposter wrote: »

I'm beginning to think that the next (few) referendums that Ireland needs is to change the constitution so that no more referendums are needed! After all what's the point in voting if you have to have the referendum over and over until we agree with the government. It just ends up costing money in terms of having the campaigns and holding the votes. Perhaps if >30% of the dail are against it it might make sense to hold a referendum but otherwise its hard to see how even the most stupid of governments couldn't get a vote through eventually especailly with the backing of all or most of the major parties!

Well, some might say that last year's Lisbon referendum offered a pretty fair example of how to do it...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dr. Baltar

Fair play to them for supporting what is essentially going to be a harder fight to win this time.
I'll be voting no not because of Sinn Féin's support but rather because I believe a second vote for no is a vote for democracy!

Scofflaw

Sir Baralot wrote: »

Fair play to them for supporting what is essentially going to be a harder fight to win this time.
I'll be voting no not because of Sinn Féin's support but rather because I believe a second vote for no is a vote for democracy!

Any vote is a vote for democracy...

cordially,
Scofflaw

RedPlanet

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

Because the government went out and ask people why the voted no. The majority said that they didn't know about the Treaty or voted No based on reasons that weren't even in the Treaty itself. .

That's not really true.
I remember criticisms at the time the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union was setup.
Unfortunately i don't have those links.
But, i emailed Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin TD about it, and he replied right away.
I didn't ask to copy and paste his email response but some of the relevant bits are:

From Sinn Féin’s initial meeting with the Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin TD, prior to the sub-committee's establishment, we engaged with the process at every stage. We were critical of the committee’s composition and its narrow terms of reference. And while we did welcome the opportunity to debate the future of the EU and Ireland’s role in shaping it, we made clear from the outset that we would not collude in a process whose primary purpose was to lay the ground for a rerun of the same failed Lisbon Treaty.

As Oireachtas members we were invited to take part in the all-party committee.

The general public and organisations were invited to make submissions. These submissions were included in the committee's report, published in November 2008.

However, that is the extent of the commitment by the government parties, Fine Gael and Labour to including the people in the committee's work. We argued that the sub-committee should pro-actively engage as broad a section of the public as possible, and that it should meet in open session - outside of Dublin - and listen to the opinions of the people. The government shamefully chose to reject this proposal, with Labour and Fine Gael following suit in their own approach to the committee's work.

The imbalance of speakers to address the sub-committee was stark and again illustrated the chasm between the electorate and Ireland’s decision-makers. Of the 80 or so individuals who addressed the sub-committee, only about ten advocated a rejection of the Treaty.

Having excluded the general public, and having selected a panel of speakers that held the Government’s and indeed Fine Gael and Labour's own view, it was difficult to see how the sub-committee’s report would do anything other than confirm the Government’s own position

The point i'd like to make, was that the speakers were by INVITE only.
It wasn't open to the general public.
The government didn't actually canvass public sentiment at all.
The whole process is just a going-thru-the-motions exercise for a re-run of Lisbon. I wonder did they even ask the public if they wanted to have another vote on Lisbon? The answer of course, is no.

He also mentions that the hearings took an adversarial sort of approach. Where the speaker was "put on trail", infront of the Oireachtas Sub-Committee. Rather than a sort of open mike.

rcecil

quote -- It's not technically the same thing though. Yes the Treaty is the same but we now have legal guarantees this time to safeguard against any of the lies Sinn Fein used last time around so why vote no?

If they were lies why didn't the corporate parties get real changes and not just vague promises. Show them to me in writing. For the honest opposition, visit www.sinnfein.ie

View

rcecil wrote: »

quote -- It's not technically the same thing though. Yes the Treaty is the same but we now have legal guarantees this time to safeguard against any of the lies Sinn Fein used last time around so why vote no?

If they were lies why didn't the corporate parties get real changes and not just vague promises. Show them to me in writing. For the honest opposition, visit www.sinnfein.ie

The Government got the assurances that they believe - rightly or wrongly - will convince a majority of the electorate to support Lisbon.

You didn't actually believe the Government was going to opt for a rewrite of every EU Treaty from the 1950's on just to keep Sinn Fein happy, did you? They want to convince the electorate not alienate them totally...

ei.sdraob

View wrote: »

The Government got the assurances that they believe - rightly or wrongly - will convince a majority of the electorate to support Lisbon.

You didn't actually believe the Government was going to opt for a rewrite of every EU Treaty from the 1950's on just to keep Sinn Fein happy, did you? They want to convince the electorate not alienate them totally...

when were SF happy about any EU Treaty?

up to and including joining the EU back in 70s

if SF had their way, what would Ireland look like now? shudders at the taught :eek:

oscarBravo

rcecil wrote: »

Show them to me in writing.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055617733