nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why voting no?

Ellie The Mess

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

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

PopeBuckfastXVI

AuRevoir wrote: »

I'd trust Kathy Sinnott alot quicker than I'd trust Brian Cowen & the government.

So you believe that 'The referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland poses a serious issue for Irish voters regarding abortion rights'?

AuRevoir

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

So you believe that 'The referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland poses a serious issue for Irish voters regarding abortion rights'?

No, I never said that so no need to put a spin on things. Let me rephrase. I would rather listen to what Kathy Sinnott says whether I agree or disagree with her, than to listen to anything that Brian Cowen & the Government say. Hope that clears it all up.;)

PopeBuckfastXVI

AuRevoir wrote: »

No, I never said that so no need to put a spin on things. Let me rephrase. I would rather listen to what Kathy Sinnott says whether I agree or disagree with her, than to listen to anything that Brian Cowen & the Government say. Hope that clears it all up.;)

Indeed, given my own preference I'd silence both of them.

P. Breathnach

AuRevoir wrote: »

No, I never said that so no need to put a spin on things. Let me rephrase. I would rather listen to what Kathy Sinnott says whether I agree or disagree with her, than to listen to anything that Brian Cowen & the Government say. Hope that clears it all up.;)

Now who's putting a spin on things?

AuRevoir

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Now who's putting a spin on things?

Sometimes I wonder are people on this board just looking for an argument for argument's sake? :rolleyes:

BlitzKrieg

So a prominant no to lisbon campaigner who has abortion as her central argument is subject to the lies of the *yes* campaign.

Its not a matter whether you believe her or trust her, she still campaigned extensively with abortion as her central topic.

Which makes the issue more then *1 person at a rally* and not lies from the yes side.

want more?

4. Don’t lose the right to decide our values
It is up to you – and the rest of the Irish people – to decide what kind of society we want. But legal experts have warned that our wishes could be simply overruled if the Lisbon Treaty is passed.

That’s because under the Lisbon Treaty we’ll be made subject to the EU Court of Justice and the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Charter will be legally binding on Ireland and can force us to change our laws on issues as important as:
- how we raise and educate our children

- legalization of prostitution and drugs
- abortion and euthanasia

We should decide our own laws

Vote No to Lisbon

from: http://www.lisbonvote.com/

P. Breathnach

AuRevoir wrote: »

Sometimes I wonder are people on this board just looking for an argument for argument's sake? :rolleyes:

I have a liking for truth and truthfulness.

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I have a liking for truth and truthfulness.

As opposed to factoids and truthiness?

That pretty much covers me as well.

cordially,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

As opposed to factoids and truthiness?

Mind you, the occasional factoid behaves (like some sub-atomic particles) in strange ways. Remember "Vote no to keep our Commissioner" with the untrue implication that the Lisbon Treaty would remove "our" Commissioner?

Well, we are getting to keep our Commissioner. If we now vote no, perhaps that will be reversed. Should those in favour of the treaty adopt the slogan "Vote yes to keep our Commissioner"?

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Mind you, the occasional factoid behaves (like some sub-atomic particles) in strange ways. Remember "Vote no to keep our Commissioner" with the untrue implication that the Lisbon Treaty would remove "our" Commissioner?

Well, we are getting to keep our Commissioner. If we now vote no, perhaps that will be reversed. Should those in favour of the treaty adopt the slogan "Vote yes to keep our Commissioner"?

I'm a little bit torn on that one. The false dichotomy has already been created, where the rotating Commission was described as "losing our Commissioner", and that's pretty firmly lodged in people's heads. Within that false dichotomy, voting Yes is how you "keep our Commissioner".

slightly divided,
Scofflaw

Stokes

Keeping or losing a commissioner isn't too important either way. People tend to forget the commission is a supra-national entity meaning that it looks after the EU's interest as a whole. In theory a french commissioner for industry should make the same decision as a german commissioner for industry. What would be a bad thing is losing our place at the council of ministers, but thats not on the table

P. Breathnach

Stokes wrote: »

Keeping or losing a commissioner isn't too important either way. People tend to forget the commission is a supra-national entity meaning that it looks after the EU's interest as a whole. In theory a french commissioner for industry should make the same decision as a german commissioner for industry. What would be a bad thing is losing our place at the council of ministers, but thats not on the table

I agree. But the "keep our commissioner" slogan was used by the no campaign last time around, even though the Lisbon treaty had absolutely nothing to do with reducing the number of commissioners. It seemed to have some impact.

Stokes

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I agree. But the "keep our commissioner" slogan was used by the no campaign last time around, even though the Lisbon treaty had absolutely nothing to do with reducing the number of commissioners. It seemed to have some impact.

Yeah i agree. I was just pointing out its a fairly easy argument to circumvent.

RandomName2

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I agree. But the "keep our commissioner" slogan was used by the no campaign last time around, even though the Lisbon treaty had absolutely nothing to do with reducing the number of commissioners. It seemed to have some impact.

And bizarrely it seemed to have some impact in post-Lisbon negotiations as well

If the 'yes' side start saying vote yes to keep the commissioner can the no side start saying 'stop talking about things that have nothing to do with Lisbon?'

Hmmm.... if these guarantees are supposed to be included in Croatia vote - will the Commissioner criteria be included in that anyway - so even if there is a 'no' vote, the Commissioner could still be kept (and guarantees enacted for a treaty which has not been passed). Lol

Still think commissioners should be elected...

I think the 'vote no due to abortion' argument gets on my nerves as much as 'vote yes or we'll be lonely'.

Hitman Actual

RandomName2 wrote: »

And bizarrely it seemed to have some impact in post-Lisbon negotiations as well

If the 'yes' side start saying vote yes to keep the commissioner can the no side start saying 'stop talking about things that have nothing to do with Lisbon?'

Hmmm.... if these guarantees are supposed to be included in Croatia vote - will the Commissioner criteria be included in that anyway - so even if there is a 'no' vote, the Commissioner could still be kept (and guarantees enacted for a treaty which has not been passed). Lol

If Lisbon isn't passed, we go on under Nice, which stipulates that the number of Commissioners must be reduced once there are 27 member states. With Lisbon, this can be bypassed as the number of Commissioners can be decided by unanimity. And with the guarantee given that all member states can continue to appoint a Commissioner, keeping a Commissioner is now very much tied in with Lisbon being ratified.

I agree it's not really worthy of use as a 'Yes slogan', but people should be aware of the situation if we go on under Nice Treaty.

PopeBuckfastXVI

RandomName2 wrote: »

Still think commissioners should be elected...

By whom?

Also, do you think Ministers should be directly elected?

RandomName2

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

By whom?

Also, do you think Ministers should be directly elected?

By me.

Election of TDs directly to their Ministerial positions? An interesting one- done by proxy to a certain extent already (people don't vote for Enda Kenny envisiging him ending up as Education Minister, for example, but rather, Taoiseach).

The reason why there isn't a direct votre for Ministers is because the cabinet formed by this process may not be able to work together (a bit like the initial formation of the First Inter-Party Government). But the idea, per se, is not a bad one.

So if Lisbon is not passed, the construction of the Croation Treaty will be different?

PopeBuckfastXVI

RandomName2 wrote: »

By me.

Election of TDs directly to their Ministerial positions? An interesting one- done by proxy to a certain extent already (people don't vote for Enda Kenny envisiging him ending up as Education Minister, for example, but rather, Taoiseach).

The reason why there isn't a direct votre for Ministers is because the cabinet formed by this process may not be able to work together (a bit like the initial formation of the First Inter-Party Government). But the idea, per se, is not a bad one.

So if Lisbon is not passed, the construction of the Croation Treaty will be different?

So do you get to elect the 'internal markets' commissioner directly, or do you elect someone who will end up in a random office?

And if so, why bother having ministers nominated by the Taoiseach at all? Why don't we directly elect the government.

In reality there is no difference between the nomination of a minister and the nomination of a commissioner.

And beyond all that, Lisbon doesn't affect whether commissioners are nominated or elected. So it's not relevant to any discussion on Lisbon.

RandomName2

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

So do you get to elect the 'internal markets' commissioner directly, or do you elect someone who will end up in a random office?

And if so, why bother having ministers nominated by the Taoiseach at all? Why don't we directly elect the government.

In reality there is no difference between the nomination of a minister and the nomination of a commissioner.

And beyond all that, Lisbon doesn't affect whether commissioners are nominated or elected. So it's not relevant to any discussion on Lisbon.

A directly elected government is theoretically possible...

But anyway the appointment of a Commissioner to a certain position within the Commission is comparable - but his appointment as role of Commissioner in the first place is not. I don't even think the Commissioner has to be elected to the Dail at all, even though this tends to be the way it goes, as far as I know (if only for the sake of cabinet convenience)

And in relation to Lisbon... not much importance apart from the fact that the Commission as a whole is more powerful after Lisbon.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Well it's within the powers of the Government to hold an election for their nomination for Commissioner, so maybe raise it as an issue with any canvassers at the next GE, if it's important to you.

molloyjh

RandomName2 wrote: »

A directly elected government is theoretically possible...

Perhaps, but is it really a good idea in terms of the Commissioners? There are 2 things you need to consider here.

1. How would they realistically be appointed?
The first 3 possibilities to spring to mind is elect them as a Commissioner, but not to a particular Commission. This would make it very hard to determine who should be elected as you don't know what role they will play.
Give each Member State a particular portfolio, which would mean having no say in 26 other portfolios ever, and who would decide which Member State gets what?
Rotate the portfolios among the Member States, this would mean that for each term different Member States would ultimately have complete control over each area.

2. If appointed on this basis how will they perform?
The big worry here is that they will perform to satisfy their electorate with a view to re-election. Of that you can be almost 100% sure. So that would mean that all 27 other Commissions would be acting in different interests, possibly clashing often and introducing legislation that gets shot down by the Parliament and/or Council for being too biased. The EU would have a hard time getting anything done.

I just can't see it working in practice. The Commissioners need to free of electoral bias to ensure that the EU works.

K-9

RandomName2 wrote: »

By me.

Election of TDs directly to their Ministerial positions? An interesting one- done by proxy to a certain extent already (people don't vote for Enda Kenny envisiging him ending up as Education Minister, for example, but rather, Taoiseach).

The reason why there isn't a direct votre for Ministers is because the cabinet formed by this process may not be able to work together (a bit like the initial formation of the First Inter-Party Government). But the idea, per se, is not a bad one.

So if Lisbon is not passed, the construction of the Croation Treaty will be different?

It could be argued Commissioners are more like Department Heads of the Civil Service.

Treora

Could no to Lisbon be a viable way to stop NAMA? Well threaten with no and see if the government reacts?

Scofflaw

Treora wrote: »

Could no to Lisbon be a viable way to stop NAMA? Well threaten with no and see if the government reacts?

Or vote Yes and see how the government reacts, since neither vote has any bearing on NAMA.

The problem with trying to use the Lisbon vote to say something else is that it's like refusing a cup of tea in order to indicate your view on evolution.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RedPlanet

Think about it.
If the people go out and vote YES to this referenda, the EU and certainly not the governement will ever respect another NO vote.
Why should they?
They'll have learned from Nice and Lisbon that if the people don't vote the way they're meant, just keep asking them til they vote the way their supposed to.

That's a bad lesson, and it damages democracy.

Daftendirekt

RedPlanet wrote: »

Think about it.
If the people go out and vote YES to this referenda, the EU and certainly not the governement will ever respect another NO vote.
Why should they?
They'll have learned from Nice and Lisbon that if the people don't vote the way they're meant, just keep asking them til they vote the way their supposed to.

That's a bad lesson, and it damages democracy.

You know what... you're right.

Let's never vote on anything again, in fear of people changing their minds about things. That's far less damaging to democracy.

Dinner

RedPlanet wrote: »

If the people go out and vote YES to this referenda, the EU and certainly not the governement will ever respect another NO vote.
Why should they?
They'll have learned from Nice and Lisbon that if the people don't vote the way they're meant, just keep asking them til they vote the way their supposed to.

That's a bad lesson, and it damages democracy.

Yeah you're right. It's a dangerous precedent. That's twice now they've addressed the concerns of the public and then asked us to vote again.

Such a blatant disregard for democracy....

FutureTaoiseach

Dinner wrote: »

Yeah you're right. It's a dangerous precedent. That's twice now they've addressed the concerns of the public and then asked us to vote again.

Such a blatant disregard for democracy....

Actually, it will be the Irish people that determine whether the govt and the EU have "addressed" their concerns on Lisbon to their satisfaction when we go to the polls in October. It is not an objective fact that they have done so with respect to Lisbon.

turgon

Does Dinner think that once we say no to something we can never ever ever even be asked about it again?? Is that you idea of "democracy"?

FutureTaoiseach

There is no comparison with Divorce and Abortion because 10 years had elapsed in those cases. If the Government is going to go down the road of arguing that public-opinion has changed since then to justify a second vote, then they should also give us a second General Election as three of out of four people appear to have had a change of heart in their voting for this Government aswell. Or does the rule only apply when it suits FF? :rolleyes: