Reasons to vote NO to Lisbon

Kickaha

1.Ireland would no longer have equal voting rights with all other EU nations.

2.EU state representatives would be able to meet and modify the treaty/EU constitution after it has been ratified.

3.To remove any doubt about "binding guarantees/clarifications/ious/excuses to run another vote" .

Zulu

3. The British Nazi party (UKIP) want you to.

4. A fundamentalist Christian party who are against homosexuality & family planning want you to.

RealityCheck

Kickaha wrote: »

1.Ireland would no longer have equal voting rights with all other EU nations.

I was'nt aware we had equal voting rights with all other EU nations ?

100gSoma

Kickaha wrote: »

1.Ireland would no longer have equal voting rights with all other EU nations.

2.EU state representatives would be able to meet and modify the treaty/EU constitution after it has been ratified.

1. Why should we have equal voting rights? We represent less than 1% of the EU population. Is it right we have equal voting weight as Germany with 20 times the population and 30 times the economy?

2. The way this country has been the past 10 years, surely thats a good thing! lol

sirmoff

1. We shouldnt be made vote a second time!

2. They are asking us to vote on something i would imagine most people know very little about! (Me included)

3. Anyone else think the money that went into posters is money seriously wasted!

Tarobot

sirmoff wrote: »

1. We shouldnt be made vote a second time!

2. They are asking us to vote on something i would imagine most people know very little about! (Me included)

3. Anyone else think the money that went into posters is money seriously wasted!

1. Why? It isn't unconstitutional and it has happened 3 times already in the history of the Irish state.

2. Well look, it isn't as if you haven't had enough time to look it up. The Referendum Commission website has a 30-minute guide. Go there now. And if at the end of the day you don't feel you understand it, PLEASE don't vote.

3. None of the money spent on posters was public money. I'm sure the Irish poster industry and their employees are very happy about it.

100gSoma

If the electorate were completely ignorant to the treaty contents, and being swayed by campaigns of misinformation, then YES it is perfectly normal to hold the referendum again after addressing the lack of understanding. PErsonally I am 10x more aware of the treaty contents and the changes it proposes this time around.

Penn

sirmoff wrote: »

1. We shouldnt be made vote a second time!

2. They are asking us to vote on something i would imagine most people know very little about! (Me included)

3. Anyone else think the money that went into posters is money seriously wasted!

1. 22% of the people who voted no last time voted so because they didn't know enough about the Treaty. We are being asked to vote on it again now that we have additional guarantees in place and more information has been provided

2. So don't vote. If you don't know what you are voting for, don't vote. Get informed about it at http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/, the official Referendum Commission site, which is unbiased, and presents the FACTS only. Don't vote no just because you hate the government or don't know what the treaty is about. Whether you vote yes or no is up to you, but make it an informed decision.

3. Without the posters and leaflets, people would be even less informed. The posters are there to let everyone know what date the referendum is on, and add a piece of information in order to persuade you to vote the way that party wants you to vote. Whether that information is always true or not is another matter

sirmoff

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

1. 22% of the people who voted no last time voted so because they didn't know enough about the Treaty. We are being asked to vote on it again now that we have additional guarantees in place and more information has been provided

2. So don't vote. If you don't know what you are voting for, don't vote. Get informed about it at http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/, the official Referendum Commission site, which is unbiased, and presents the FACTS only. Don't vote no just because you hate the government or don't know what the treaty is about. Whether you vote yes or no is up to you, but make it an informed decision.

3. Without the posters and leaflets, people would be even less informed. The posters are there to let everyone know what date the referendum is on, and add a piece of information in order to persuade you to vote the way that party wants you to vote. Whether that information is always true or not is another matter

To be honest im not trying to promote a yes or no vote but from a neutral perspective and having listened to both sides im just not convinced. I have read up on the lisbon treaty and most of it just goes over my head. Maybe thats just me!
I'd be seriously worried if there is anyone out there who has learnt anything from posters as many of them seem to be misleading?
According to both sides, each others posters are blatent lies!
I dont know how true this is,but it is for me only causing more confusion! Fair enough we're being asked to vote again but if your asked to do something and you say no do you want to be asked again?

Scofflaw

sirmoff wrote: »

To be honest im not trying to promote a yes or no vote but from a neutral perspective and having listened to both sides im just not convinced. I have read up on the lisbon treaty and most of it just goes over my head. Maybe thats just me!
I'd be seriously worried if there is anyone out there who has learnt anything from posters as many of them seem to be misleading?
According to both sides, each others posters are blatent lies!
I dont know how true this is,but it is for me only causing more confusion! Fair enough we're being asked to vote again but if your asked to do something and you say no do you want to be asked again?

Well....is the question important?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Penn

sirmoff wrote: »

To be honest im not trying to promote a yes or no vote but from a neutral perspective and having listened to both sides im just not convinced. I have read up on the lisbon treaty and most of it just goes over my head. Maybe thats just me!
I'd be seriously worried if there is anyone out there who has learnt anything from posters as many of them seem to be misleading?
According to both sides, each others posters are blatent lies!
I dont know how true this is,but it is for me only causing more confusion! Fair enough we're being asked to vote again but if your asked to do something and you say no do you want to be asked again?

If you've read up on it, think you understand the points enough to make an informed decision, and still want to vote no, then vote no. But at least you're voting no for a reason. If it doesn't sit right with you, then vote no. But if its because its all gone over your head and you still don't understand it, then ask yourself, "Should I vote if I don't understand what I'm voting on?"

I agree with the posters getting out of hand and a lot of scaremongering has been used by both sides. But lets face it, this always happens. Its nothing new. Don't base your judgement on the posters, base it on the facts.

I hear what you say about being asked to vote again after we've already said no, but surely if it for the good of the nation and the EU, surely they should give us another chance, because they feel it benefits us. Lets say you are sick and a relation offers to bring you to the doctors, but you say no. A few hours later, you feel even worse with new symptoms and they ask again. Do you say no again because you've already said no, or are you glad they ask you again because now you understand your sickness more? Our government is asking us to vote again and have provided more information this time about the treaty. As I said, 22% of the people who voted no last time voted that way because they didn't understand the treaty, which I think was the governments fault. Now, we know a lot more about it I reckon, to make an informed choice.

RE*AC*TOR

1. If you don't think the EU should become increasingly federal.

sirmoff

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well....is the question important?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well i gave my reasons above, i may have reasons to vote yes as well but thats not what the question was! I was merely responding to a reply.
I figure thats the question you are referring to?

ei.sdraob

RE*AC*TOR wrote: »

1. If you don't think the EU should become increasingly federal.

and what exactly in Lisbon leads to that? please do point out the articles


Lets not forget that its Declan Ganley from the NO side that wants a Federal United States of Europe


/

sirmoff

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

If you've read up on it, think you understand the points enough to make an informed decision, and still want to vote no, then vote no. But at least you're voting no for a reason. If it doesn't sit right with you, then vote no. But if its because its all gone over your head and you still don't understand it, then ask yourself, "Should I vote if I don't understand what I'm voting on?"

I agree with the posters getting out of hand and a lot of scaremongering has been used by both sides. But lets face it, this always happens. Its nothing new. Don't base your judgement on the posters, base it on the facts.

I hear what you say about being asked to vote again after we've already said no, but surely if it for the good of the nation and the EU, surely they should give us another chance, because they feel it benefits us. Lets say you are sick and a relation offers to bring you to the doctors, but you say no. A few hours later, you feel even worse with new symptoms and they ask again. Do you say no again because you've already said no, or are you glad they ask you again because now you understand your sickness more? Our government is asking us to vote again and have provided more information this time about the treaty. As I said, 22% of the people who voted no last time voted that way because they didn't understand the treaty, which I think was the governments fault. Now, we know a lot more about it I reckon, to make an informed choice.

Taken on board!
Ive yet to make my decision, and i welcome anyones comment/advice.
If im not well enough informed by the time i do vote i will not vote yes or no!

ei.sdraob

sirmoff wrote: »

Taken on board!
Ive yet to make my decision, and i welcome anyones comment/advice.
If im not well enough informed by the time i do vote i will not vote yes or no!

Great please see my signature with links to REFCOMs site

i wish more people who didnt know whats happening

either find out the issues (not hard to do) or stay out of it

sirmoff

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Great please see my signature with links to REFCOMs site

i wish more people who didnt know whats happening

either find out the issues (not hard to do) or stay out of it

Everyones entitled to their two cents!

Run_to_da_hills

Protect ourselves from the forced vaccinations and cumpulsory H1N1 / virus implantible microchips. :eek:

RE*AC*TOR

ei.sdraob wrote: »

and what exactly in Lisbon leads to that? please do point out the articles

Pardon me? I'm not sure what's with the attitude. The reasons are well documented in many areas by neutral organisations, where the EU gains new powers, and new positions within the EU are created. It has been happening for a long time, not just with Lisbon, and I think at this point we are becoming very far removed from the original vision of a collection of sovereign states working together for the ECONOMIC benefit of all.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Lets not forget that its Declan Ganley from the NO side that wants a Federal United States of Europe

I don't give a toss what Declan Ganley does or does not want. Or Coir, or Sinn Fein for that matter. My opinion, my vote.

Penn

RE*AC*TOR wrote: »

I think at this point we are becoming very far removed from the original vision of a collection of sovereign states working together for the ECONOMIC benefit of all.

But wasn't it originally set up between 6 member states? When more states join, more provisions have to be made

Penn

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Protect ourselves from the forced vaccinations and cumpulsory H1N1 / virus implantible microchips. :eek:

Nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty :eek:

Sam Vimes

sirmoff wrote: »

2. They are asking us to vote on something i would imagine most people know very little about! (Me included)

I don't understand why that's a reason to vote no. They're asking us to vote on it because it's required by the constitution. If they didn't have that requirement it would have been passed in the Dail. Since you don't like being asked to vote on it and it would have passed had you not been asked, why would you vote for the opposite of what the outcome would have been had you not been asked

RE*AC*TOR

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't understand why that's a reason to vote no. They're asking us to vote on it because it's required by the constitution. If they didn't have that requirement it would have been passed in the Dail. Since you don't like being asked to vote on it and it would have passed had you not been asked, why would you vote for the opposite of what the outcome would have been had you not been asked

A bit like buying a pig in a bag?

ei.sdraob

RE*AC*TOR wrote: »

Pardon me? I'm not sure what's with the attitude. The reasons are well documented in many areas by neutral organisations

lets see links to these reasons and these neutral organisations

...

Sam Vimes

RE*AC*TOR wrote: »

A bit like buying a pig in a bag?

I'm lost.....

Nuravictus

I am voting no again, I was fairly conflicted this time about which way to vote but the EU made up my mind for me with their amazing Orwellian Project Indect.

A five-year research programme, called Project Indect, aims to develop computer programmes which act as "agents" to monitor and process information from web sites, discussion forums, file servers, peer-to-peer networks and even individual computers.
Its main objectives include the "automatic detection of threats and abnormal behaviour or violence".

If the Yes side are pushing facts like yes = more jobs I will push facts like yes = Lose of Freedoms, The begining of Pre-Crime based on your behavior, etc. The different between the Yes side and their yes = more jobs is that what I am saying is fact.

Source
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6210255/EU-funding-Orwellian-artificial-intelligence-plan-to-monitor-public-for-abnormal-behaviour.html

RE*AC*TOR

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm lost.....

It's an expression. A guy offers to sell you a "pig in a bag". You can't see into the bag. You don't know what's in there. It might be a pig.

RE*AC*TOR

ei.sdraob wrote: »

lets see links to these reasons and these neutral organisations

...

Yes... fine... you win at the internet. Bravo.

Sam Vimes

RE*AC*TOR wrote: »

It's an expression. A guy offers to sell you a "pig in a bag". You can't see into the bag. You don't know what's in there. It might be a pig.

But it might a million euro too. The guy said that simply the fact that he is being asked to vote on it is a reason to vote no because he doesn't understand it. But if he had got his wish, if he hadn't been asked to vote on it, it would have passed in the Dail, so why do the opposite? It makes no sense.....

ei.sdraob

RE*AC*TOR wrote: »

Yes... fine... you win at the internet. Bravo.

what no links?

taught so

sirmoff

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't understand why that's a reason to vote no. They're asking us to vote on it because it's required by the constitution. If they didn't have that requirement it would have been passed in the Dail. Since you don't like being asked to vote on it and it would have passed had you not been asked, why would you vote for the opposite of what the outcome would have been had you not been asked

Im aware that its up to us to find out what we are voting on before we vote, but its all a bit too vague for me and others.
Maybe if information was produced in a simpler format i wouldnt have called this a reason to vote no.
Im not the only one who feels this way, a lot of my friends are in a similar position. The lack of clear information is leading them to vote no in a reaction to what they see is the government not producing a clearer guide on the lisbon treaty.

Oafley Jones

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But it might a million euro too. The guy said that simply the fact that he is being asked to vote on it is a reason to vote no because he doesn't understand it. But if he had got his wish, if he hadn't been asked to vote on it, it would have passed in the Dail, so why do the opposite? It makes no sense.....

The sad thing is that he can see could always see into the bag, he just doesn't want to understand what's inside.

Sam Kade

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But it might a million euro too. The guy said that simply the fact that he is being asked to vote on it is a reason to vote no because he doesn't understand it. But if he had got his wish, if he hadn't been asked to vote on it, it would have passed in the Dail, so why do the opposite? It makes no sense.....

Would you sign a paper without reading it?

Tarobot

Sam Kade wrote: »

Would you sign a paper without reading it?

Well with a yes or a no you are signing it!

That's what the NO side don't seem to understand.

Sam Vimes

sirmoff wrote: »

Im aware that its up to us to find out what we are voting on before we vote, but its all a bit too vague for me and others.
Maybe if information was produced in a simpler format i wouldnt have called this a reason to vote no.
Im not the only one who feels this way, a lot of my friends are in a similar position. The lack of clear information is leading them to vote no in a reaction to what they see is the government not producing a clearer guide on the lisbon treaty.

There is sh!tloads of clear information, for example here:
http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/
http://www.lisbontreaty.ie/
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61327732&postcount=1

It's a 300 page international treaty describing the relationship between 27 nations, it can only be made so simple and it can't be fit on a poster. If you think the government didn't give enough information then that's a reason to vote out the government, not to vote no to a treaty that you don't know anything about. If you don't understand the treaty you should either leave the decision to people who do or vote yes because as it stands you're blocking something that 26 other nations have signed up to (or will soon sign up to) not because you object to something the treaty will do but because you have a problem with the Irish government. This treaty is more important than the failings of the Irish government

Penn

sirmoff wrote: »

Im aware that its up to us to find out what we are voting on before we vote, but its all a bit too vague for me and others.
Maybe if information was produced in a simpler format i wouldnt have called this a reason to vote no.
Im not the only one who feels this way, a lot of my friends are in a similar position. The lack of clear information is leading them to vote no in a reaction to what they see is the government not producing a clearer guide on the lisbon treaty.

http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/lisbon_treaty_faq.html

http://www.lisbontreaty.ie/

It's never going to be a really simple guide, because they have to try and explain everything, and there is a lot in it to explain. But these links are well worth the read

Sam Vimes

Sam Kade wrote: »

Would you sign a paper without reading it?

No, I would either read it or get as good an understanding as I possibly could about it. you've had two years to understand it now so you can't use that excuse anymore. If you really wanted to find out about it you could have by now. We've been discussing it here for months for example, the government is not the only source of information on it

sirmoff

Sam Vimes wrote: »

There is sh!tloads of clear information, for example here: http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/
http://www.lisbontreaty.ie/
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61327732&postcount=1

It's a 300 page international treaty describing the relationship between 27 nations, it can only be made so simple and it can't be fit on a poster. If you think the government didn't give enough information then that's a reason to vote out the government, not to vote no to a treaty that you don't know anything about. If you don't understand the treaty you should either leave the decision to people who do or vote yes because as it stands you're blocking something that 26 other nations have signed up to (or will soon sign up to) not because you object to something the treaty will do but because you have a problem with the Irish government. This treaty is more important than the failing of the Irish government

Thats why i said in a previous post that i will not vote unless i know what im voting for!
Im just saying that there are a lot of people out there (people i know) who will vote no for the reasons i mentioned!
And im sorry but i dont find this information very clear! Just because others find the information clear doesnt mean i do! And im not alone!

RE*AC*TOR

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But it might a million euro too. The guy said that simply the fact that he is being asked to vote on it is a reason to vote no because he doesn't understand it. But if he had got his wish, if he hadn't been asked to vote on it, it would have passed in the Dail, so why do the opposite? It makes no sense.....

I don't think he was wishing he wasn't asked to vote on it. When it was drafted, the Union were fully aware that it would have to be voted on by the people of Ireland. So if people still have a problem understanding it, there is either a failure in the manner of the drafting, or in the manner of the subsequent communication.

As to whether someone should vote no, if they don't understand it. That is a decision everyone has to make for themselves. If it was me, to consent to changing our constitution, I would either want to have a very good understanding of the reprecussions, or a very strong trust in the people advocating it.

Sam Vimes

sirmoff wrote: »

Thats why i said in a previous post that i will not vote unless i know what im voting for!

Ah good man

sirmoff wrote: »

Im just saying that there are a lot of people out there (people i know) who will vote no for the reasons i mentioned!

Unfortunately true

sirmoff wrote: »

And im sorry but i dont find this information very clear! Just because others find the information clear doesnt mean i do! And im not alone!

It's complex and it takes time and effort to understand it. It's meant for politicians and lawyers, that's why it wasn't put to a referendum in other countries.

RE*AC*TOR wrote: »

I don't think he was wishing he wasn't asked to vote on it. When it was drafted, the Union were fully aware that it would have to be voted on by the people of Ireland. So if people still have a problem understanding it, there is either a failure in the manner of the drafting, or in the manner of the subsequent communication.

I know exactly what the failure was. If the only source of information on this treaty was the referendum commission and other neutral sources then everyone would understand the treaty. The reason so many people don't is because of all those groups deliberately spreading FUD to scare people. FUD such as this:

€200 billion in fisheries
€1.84 minimum wage
Forcing us to engage in military action in a terrorist attack
European superstate
Abortion
gay marriage
EUthanasia
Death penalty
Massive conspiracy to pretend the guarantees are binding
Treaty is unreadable
Treaty is designed to be unreadable
Corrupt surveys to make up fake issues and pretend to address them
Ratification through parliament in other countries is somehow undemocratic or unusual
EU "didn't allow" other countres to have referendums
Keep voting until you give the right answer
Ryanair allowed buy Aer Lingus in exchange for the campaign
Rigged polls to make it look like the yes side are ahead
Lisbon allows Turkish accession (with fake video)
Lisbon makes EU law superior to Irish law
Losing the right to referendums
We will no longer have a constitution in Ireland
Self-amending and escalator clause
Privatisation of healthcare and education
More military spending
Lavelle case could happen here
Charter of human rights allows the EU to take the homes, assets and children of people with mild intellectual disabilities and alcoholics
Voting weight halved
QMV is brand new
Loss of veto in all areas
Allows EU to raise our corporation tax
Conscription into a non-existent EU army
EU commission diverted €10 million to yes campaign
Treaty is the same as the constitution dressed up to avoid referendums
Fake polls made up by Coir
2nd vote undemocratic. (The reasons that many people voted no have been addressed and the supreme court has ruled that it's not)

They read the neutral sources and when they don't find any of those claims they think they must be missing something. The only thing they're missing is that these people are lying.

RE*AC*TOR wrote: »

As to whether someone should vote no, if they don't understand it. That is a decision everyone has to make for themselves. If it was me, to consent to changing our constitution, I would either want to have a very good understanding of the reprecussions, or a very strong trust in the people advocating it.

I assume you mean the government. This is not their treaty, they are one of hundreds of groups, people, organisations and governments advocating it. Surely they don't have mistrust in all these groups who advocate it:

Alliance for Europe
American Chamber of Commerce
Barnado's
Concern(NGO)
Construction Industry Federation (CIF)
Consumer Electronic Distributors Association (CEDA)
Cork Chamber of Commerce
Cork City Business Association
Dublin Chamber of Commerce
Dublin City Business Association
Engineers Ireland
Fashion & Footwear Federation
Financial Services Ireland
Fine Gael
Galway City Business Association
IBEC
ICMSA
ICT Ireland
ICTU
INO
Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland
Institute of Professional Auctioneers and Valuers
Irish Banking Federation
Irish Congress of Trade Unions
Irish Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies
Irish Dairy Industry Association (IDIA)
Irish Exporters Association (IEA)
Irish Farmers Association
Irish Fish Producers’ Organisation
Irish Franchise Association
Irish Hardware & Building Materials Association
Irish Hotels Federation (IHF)
Irish Medical Devices Association (IMDA)
Irish Sheep and Cattle Farmers Association
Irish Software Association (ISA)
Irish Taxation Institute
Irish Tourist Industry Confederation (ITIC)
Irish Travel Agents Association (ITAA)
Killybegs Fishermen’s Organisation
Labour
Limerick Chamber of Commerce
Limerick City Business Association
Network Dublin
North Dublin Chamber of Commerce
Pharmachemical Ireland
Progressive Democrats
Retail Ireland
SIPTU
Small Firms Association (SFA)
Society of Irish Motor Industry (SIMI)
South Dublin Chamber
Telecoms and Internet Federation (TIF)
Trocaire
Waterford Chamber of Commerce

Say more than these guys on the no side:

Sinn Fein
Socialist Workers Party
The Worker's Party of Ireland
GUE/NGL group in the European Parliament
Independence and Democracy group in the EU Parliament
Libertas
Coir/Youth Defence
Irish Society for a Christian Civilisation
éirígi
People's Movement
Irish Peace and Neutrality Alliance
UNITE The Union
Campaign Against the European Constitution
Comhlámh (NGO)
Communist Party of Ireland
Community & Workers Action Group
Irish Anti-War Movement
Irish Republican Socialist Party
Irish Socialist Network
People Before Profit
Socialist Party
32 CSM
Workers Solidarity Movement.
ATTAC
AFRI
Technical Engineering and Electrical Union
Independent Workers Union

Oafley Jones

RE*AC*TOR wrote: »

So if people still have a problem understanding it, there is either a failure in the manner of the drafting, or in the manner of the subsequent communication.

Personal responsibility enters into as well. Some people are far too happy to wallow in ignorance.

Sam Kade

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No, I would either read it or get as good an understanding as I possibly could about it. you've had two years to understand it now so you can't use that excuse anymore. If you really wanted to find out about it you could have by now. We've been discussing it here for months for example, the government is not the only source of information on it

What makes you think that I don't understand it? That comment was to simplify the pig in a bag comment you had difficulty understanding earlier.:rolleyes:

RE*AC*TOR

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Personal responsibility enters into as well.

A fair point. A general flaw in democratic processes.

Sam Vimes

Sam Kade wrote: »

What makes you think that I don't understand it?

Sam Kade wrote: »

Would you sign a paper without reading it?

I was speaking generally. No one who "hasn't read it" should vote either way. Ignorance is no excuse after two years.

Sam Kade wrote: »

That comment was to simplify the pig in a bag comment you had difficulty understanding earlier.:rolleyes:

Oh I understood it perfectly, I just fundamentally disagree with it because people have had two years to look in the bag to see if it does in fact contain a pig

Nulty

Surely voting no on the basis of not understanding the treaty is a perfectly acceptable reason! Fair enough, if you have been completely ignoring it I'd say it doesn't concern you then. But if you try to understand it and cant - VOTE NO.

Your voting NOT TO CHANGE the ways things are.

If your asked to walk into a dark room and your afraid of whats inside, you wouldn't leave the decision to someone else. You'd decide to stay in the well lit room you've been in for the last 7 years.

Scofflaw

Nulty wrote: »

Surely voting no on the basis of not understanding the treaty is a perfectly acceptable reason! Fair enough, if you have been completely ignoring it I'd say it doesn't concern you then. But if you try to understand it and cant - VOTE NO.

Your voting NOT TO CHANGE the ways things are.

If your asked to walk into a dark room and your afraid of whats inside, you wouldn't leave the decision to someone else. You'd decide to stay in the well lit room you've been in for the last 7 years.

Unfortunately, it appears that the Nice enlargement rules under which we'll operate if Lisbon isn't ratified come as a complete surprise to most people. A No vote isn't a vote not to change - it's a vote to lose our Commissioner, for example.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sam Vimes

Nulty wrote: »

Surely voting no on the basis of not understanding the treaty is a perfectly acceptable reason! Fair enough, if you have been completely ignoring it I'd say it doesn't concern you then. But if you try to understand it and cant - VOTE NO.

No if you try to understand it and can't, still don't vote. They spent 5 years and millions writing this treaty so it's safe to assume that the people who know the most about the European Union think it's necessary. They wouldn't do all that work for the craic. A treaty like this has to be complicated or it leaves open hundreds of loop holes but that is not a reason to reject it out of fear.

I'm sure you'd be pretty pissed off if you spent months writing a proposal up in work that you felt would save the company and it got shot down because your plan was complicated.

Nulty wrote: »

Your voting NOT TO CHANGE the ways things are.

No you're not. The size of the commission will be reduced in the next few months if we vote no. Keep your commissioner, vote yes!

Nulty

http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/lisbon_treaty_faq.html

What areas are currently covered by QMV?

Within the Treaty on the EC (to be renamed the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified)

Regulations relating to general principles and limits of the right to access to documents of EU institutions, offices or agencies

So QMV will (Post-Lisbon) determine how much/which of the documents of EU institutions, offices or agencies are accessible by the public? Surely we shoukld all be able to look at any of them?

Nulty

Why do we lose our commissioner?

Sam Vimes

Nulty wrote: »

Why do we lose our commissioner?

Because it was decided under Nice. One of the guarantees the government got was that the procedure in Lisbon that defined how the commission would be reduced won't be used. If we vote no the commission must reduce in size in the next few months

marco_polo

Nulty wrote: »

Why do we lose our commissioner?

Because it is in the current Nice Treaty that the Commission will be reduced.