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.