Reasons to vote NO to Lisbon

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.

marco_polo

Nulty wrote: »

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



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?

Hint: What areas are currently covered by QMV

Nulty

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

Can you expand on the situation of the commissioner please. Why do we lose our commissioner now after so long of Nice? Why is the commision reducing in size at all?

Sam Vimes

Nulty wrote: »

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?

Well no we shouldn't, some stuff need to be kept confidential but all that says is that which documents will be made public will be decided by qualified majority voting, the keeping of some documents confidential is not new

edit: and it's in the "currently decided" section

Nulty

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well no we shouldn't, some stuff need to be kept confidential but all that says is that which documents will be made public will be decided by qualified majority voting, the keeping of some documents confidential is not new

Ok, some stuff should be confidential, sure. Who's voting in the QMV? Counsel of Ministers? Are those that vote on confidentiality directly appointed by the people or by those already in power?

Mikefitzs

Did our commisioner do anything to help keep Dell jobs in Limerick from moving to Poland?
We need to get our farmers and fishermen back to work and not have them getting payments to park their tractors and boats. Can voting yes do this?
How will jobs be created if we vote yes?

Nulty

I'll try to move these questions to another thread, as this is off topic

Sam Vimes

Nulty wrote: »

Ok, some stuff should be confidential, sure. Who's voting in the QMV? Counsel of Ministers? Are those that vote on confidentiality directly appointed by the people or by those already in power?

I'm not sure if it would be the commission, the European council, the council of ministers or the parliament tbh. Probably a mixture of all four depending on the issue. Only the commission is unelected btw

Nulty wrote: »

Can you expand on the situation of the commissioner please. Why do we lose our commissioner now after so long of Nice? Why is the commision reducing in size at all?

The Nice treaty states that the size of the commission must be "less than the number of member states". Lisbon defined this as a rotating system of 18 commissioners but they have agreed not to do that if we vote yes (because the guarantees only apply if we vote yes). The size of the commission must reduce by at least one.

They're reducing the size because the commission is bloated and ineffective. He's not "our" commissioner, the commissioners represent EU interests, not their country's. This concession we got because of Libertas lying to us to say that it was Lisbon that reduced the size of the commission is kind of a step back

Sam Vimes

Mikefitzs wrote: »

Did our commisioner do anything to help keep Dell jobs in Limerick from moving to Poland?

Again, he's not our commissioner, he's one of many EU commissioners. It's up to our government and our MEPs to represent us.

Mikefitzs wrote: »

We need to get our farmers and fishermen back to work and not have them getting payments to park their tractors and boats. Can voting yes do this?

I don't know but I know that voting no can't

Mikefitzs wrote: »

How will jobs be created if we vote yes?

It's only an opinion but a yes vote creates confidence and a no vote creates uncertainty about the future of Europe. Recovery is built on confidence and recessions are built on uncertainty

sirmoff

Its amazing how through reading this thread its swaying me to vote yes! After days of trying to see some sense in it! Thanks Sam Vimes!

Sam Vimes

sirmoff wrote: »

Its amazing how through reading this thread its swaying me to vote yes! After days of trying to see some sense in it! Thanks Sam Vimes!

A last minute convert \o/