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; } } }

Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

darkman2

October 2nd is the date - how do you intend to vote?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Sam Vimes

Rb wrote: »

I already voted No, nothing has changed so I don't see why my vote would.

Why did you vote no?

Daftendirekt

Rb wrote: »

I already voted No, nothing has changed so I don't see why my vote would.

Quite pleased with the results in the poll so far anyway, safe to say, however I'm just looking forward to putting this behind us, regardless of the result.

What about the addition of the legally binding guarantees?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Why did you vote no?

Can't recall the specific reasons at this moment in time, it wasn't any of the contrived "reasons" such as abortion, nor was it an anti-government protest vote, but at the time I had read an awful lot material regarding the treaty and made my decision based on that.

To be honest I've pretty much put it on the back burner as it's frustrating at the best of times, bar the odd thread here in Politics I haven't really been too bothered with it this time around nor will I be.

Again, nothing has changed so nor will my vote, however if I were to provide reasons for voting no this time around they wouldn't be treaty related, which is something I've said a few times here.

It may come across as "ignorant" but I'm pretty much sick and tired of the whole thing. My tune may change in the coming months, but for the moment I'm not really too pushed to be involved this time around.

Peadar87

I intend to vote yes in October, I believe that in current economic climate it would be a mistake to position ourselves on the peripheary of the EU.

This referendum should not be treated as a polictial football, people coming out with a vote no is a vote no for Finna Fail doesent make any sense to me.

Sam Vimes

Rb wrote: »

Can't recall the specific reasons at this moment in time, it wasn't any of the contrived "reasons" such as abortion, nor was it an anti-government protest vote, but at the time I had read an awful lot material regarding the treaty and made my decision based on that.

To be honest I've pretty much put it on the back burner as it's frustrating at the best of times, bar the odd thread here in Politics I haven't really been too bothered with it this time around nor will I be.

Again, nothing has changed so nor will my vote, however if I were to provide reasons for voting no this time around they wouldn't be treaty related, which is something I've said a few times here.

It may come across as "ignorant" but I'm pretty much sick and tired of the whole thing. My tune may change in the coming months, but for the moment I'm not really too pushed to be involved this time around.

Aw, that's disappointing

I was hoping you'd give the normal silly reasons.

I'd suggest you research it before sticking to the no camp because it's entirely possible that your objections have been clarified since the first run and you might find you have no objection anymore. Until you remember what your reasons were I can't say that for sure but unless it's a general objection to the direction the EU is goin I haven't seen one reason that has stood up to scrutiny

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'd suggest you research it before sticking to the no camp because it's entirely possible that your objections have been clarified since the first run and you might find you have no objection anymore. Until you remember what your reasons were I can't say that for sure but unless it's a general objection to the direction the EU is goin I haven't seen one reason that has stood up to scrutiny

Well, I've said it in other threads that I do completely object to the direction the EU is going (towards a larger, Political Union) and one of my own personal issues with the treaty that isn't going to go away is the increased term of the EU Presidency.

I'll always vote against this direction of the EU, however I'm fully aware that along the way I'll have to vote with the EU as there will be many things that are genuinely good for the country and the economic union.

Sorry to disappoint you re: the silly reasons

Iwasfrozen

Rb wrote: »

(towards a larger, Political Union)

I always notice that No voters use a future federalist state as a reason for voting no. Why exactly ?
Surely a European Government can't be any worse than our current one.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I always notice that No voters use a future federalist state as a reason for voting no. Why exactly ?
Surely a European Government can't be any worse than our current one.

Larger might mean more countries?

grundie

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I always notice that No voters use a future federalist state as a reason for voting no. Why exactly ?
Surely a European Government can't be any worse than our current one.

Getting the Irish government to listen to it's people is hard enough at times. Imagine how difficult it would be to get a massive federal European government to listen to you?

it doesn't matter how well intentioned the MEPs would be in a federal Europe, the bigger it is, the more bureaucratic it will be. The only people who would get noticed by MEPs will be those with the money and power to mount a campaign to get their attention.

Iwasfrozen

grundie wrote: »

it doesn't matter how well intentioned the MEPs would be in a federal Europe, the bigger it is, the more bureaucratic it will be. The only people who would get noticed by MEPs will be those with the money and power to mount a campaign to get their attention.

So America is undemocratic ?

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote:

Larger might mean more countries?

It could yes.

RandomName2

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I always notice that No voters use a future federalist state as a reason for voting no. Why exactly ?
Surely a European Government can't be any worse than our current one.

Good point - it shouldn't be just 'oh, federalist, thus vote no'. There are some positive aspects to federalism. Indeed, most informed 'yes' voters respond positively to the federalist nature of the eu and the manner in which this is extended by lisbon.

Most of the eu is affected by the same sort of economic recession as in Ireland. Our government was particularly bad due to its encouragement of the property bubble, enormous public spending, and problems with migrant workers. It's sort-of isolated from Brussels, apart from lousy 'yes' side arguments such as 'oh the eu will bail us out if we vote yes'.

Incidentally, I have heard some yes voters saying that they were motivated by wanting an eu army to be created to provide a match to that of us/russia/china.

grundie

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So America is undemocratic ?

No it isn't, but it does seem to appear that the lobbyists with money seem to be ones who get priority access to senators and congressmen.

My wife, who is American, claims that this is the biggest problem with US politics. Ordinary citizens just don't get to meet Capitol lawmakers, unless there is an election looming.

Scofflaw

grundie wrote: »

Getting the Irish government to listen to it's people is hard enough at times. Imagine how difficult it would be to get a massive federal European government to listen to you?

it doesn't matter how well intentioned the MEPs would be in a federal Europe, the bigger it is, the more bureaucratic it will be. The only people who would get noticed by MEPs will be those with the money and power to mount a campaign to get their attention.

Yes, I'd agree with that, up to a point - certainly I'm entirely repelled by the idea of a centralised Europe. Those European systems that are federal, such as the German system, seem to work well enough, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

grundie wrote: »

No it isn't, but it does seem to appear that the lobbyists with money seem to be ones who get priority access to senators and congressmen.

My wife, who is American, claims that this is the biggest problem with US politics. Ordinary citizens just don't get to meet Capitol lawmakers, unless there is an election looming.

One point I'd make about that, given the prominence of the issue of MEP expenses in the euro elections, is that much of the expenses available are for researchers for the MEP. While some MEPs abuse that to hire relatives, most don't (and they now can't, afaik). If MEPs didn;t have a reasonable research budget, they would wind up getting their 'research' from lobbyists.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

RandomName2 wrote: »

Indeed, most informed 'yes' voters respond positively to the federalist nature of the eu and the manner in which this is extended by lisbon.

Hang on there now; the EU is federalist in nature? Since when?

grundie wrote: »

No it isn't, but it does seem to appear that the lobbyists with money seem to be ones who get priority access to senators and congressmen.

My wife, who is American, claims that this is the biggest problem with US politics.

I’d say “lobbyists with money” gaining “access” to politicians has been a pretty big problem in Irish politics too.

Daftendirekt

RandomName2 wrote: »

Incidentally, I have heard some yes voters saying that they were motivated by wanting an eu army to be created to provide a match to that of us/russia/china.

I think you should provide a source for this.

Scofflaw

Daftendirekt wrote: »

RandomName2 wrote:

Incidentally, I have heard some yes voters saying that they were motivated by wanting an eu army to be created to provide a match to that of us/russia/china.

I think you should provide a source for this.

I've also heard someone say this, but literally only one person in the entire 18 months so far of the Lisbon debate - and it's not as if I haven't been paying attention. I don't doubt that if there's 1 person, there's probably at least another five or six - in the country. In a literal sense, that qualifies as "some people", but it's what Wikipedia would call weasel words.

cordially,
Scofflaw

conchubhar1

this is not related to lisbon

but the above comment is what is wrong with the world, one of many, we are not going to need to face (militarily) the u.s, china or russia - jesus christ

Eire_prince

I am unable to vote as not bewing an Irish national, but I think the governement is wrong to put this back to the irish people, despite the assurrances given by Europe in regards to the irish constitution.

I am certain that this infringes on the human rights in regards to people in Europe as they have to follow the constitution in the way it is set out.

it a bit like the them and us argument, one law for the rich and one for the poor.

Europe is not about meeting the needs of members state but the larger states.

look at the euro, it has different value in every country that has adopted it, look at inflation if it big in france or germany then we suffer due to ECB raising interest rates taking more money out of this economy, but would ECB do the same if inflation was low in the larger country and high here think not

oscarBravo

Eire_prince wrote: »

I am certain that this infringes on the human rights in regards to people in Europe...

It doesn't.

Tar.Aldarion

Um, I will vote yes, I see only positive things in this and have yet to see a negative that was true when I looked it up.

Sam Vimes

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Um, I will vote yes, I see only positive things in this and have yet to see a negative that was true when I looked it up.

I'm in exactly the same boat as yourself. If this treaty is so bad for us, why can't the people who hate it most give us one reason to vote no that's actually true?

It makes me wonder why they really want it voted down. I suppose "I don't like the EU and vote against everything to do with it" doesn't look good on a poster

Eire_prince

tell me why it doesnt.

the fact that ireland has got exception to some fundamental principles, such as neutrality, abortion and the right to withdrawl from tax harmonisation. while the rest of Europe does not have the same right. does say that they have their right infringed

how can you say equality when some people have privilege not afforded to them, under the same legislation.

bit like people in public service who has to endure drastic cuts in their pay due to the current econimic crisis, then last week, fine fail backbenchers went wailing to brian lenihan re changes in their pay and condition.

mattie goes we members of parliament, not factory workers, but they put mattie where he is, so if public sector pay should be cut so should td's

Scofflaw

Eire_prince wrote: »

tell me why it doesnt.

the fact that ireland has got exception to some fundamental principles, such as neutrality, abortion and the right to withdrawl from tax harmonisation. while the rest of Europe does not have the same right. does say that they have their right infringed

how can you say equality when some people have privilege not afforded to them, under the same legislation.

1. all other member states have the same protection in respect of their defence/security policy as we do, because the protective phrase is:

shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in NATO, under the North Atlantic Treaty

That covers the NATO members (23 out of the 27) and the others, whatever the "specific character" of their security and defence policy may be. In our case that's neutrality.

2. we have an abortion protocol purely as a reassurance. The EU has no competence in determining the legality or illegality of abortion.

3. there is no such thing in general as "tax harmonisation". The EU, again, has no power over our direct tax rates (direct = corporation tax, income tax, etc).

What we are getting in the guarantees are reassurances that things people have claimed as being in the Treaty aren't in there. Those reassurances are legally binding, but they're also, legally, unnecessary, because they deal with things that aren't in the Treaty. Since the issues covered in the guarantees aren't in the Treaty anyway, there is no way in which those issues are impacting on the other member states either.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm in exactly the same boat as yourself. If this treaty is so bad for us, why can't the people who hate it most give us one reason to vote no that's actually true?

It makes me wonder why they really want it voted down. I suppose "I don't like the EU and vote against everything to do with it" doesn't look good on a poster

The overwhelming majority of the leading No campaigners here are Eurosceptics who fundamentally reject the EU as it currently exists. For many of them, this is largely because they have deified the concept of national sovereignty and believe the existing pooling/transfer of sovereignty within the EU is inherently wrong. Hence, the EU must be opposed by whatever means necessary.

These Rejectionists can be pretty much guaranteed to oppose any EU Treaty that comes along - with the possible exception of an EU Treaty that abolishes the EU!

P. Breathnach

View wrote: »

... These Rejectionists can be pretty much guaranteed to oppose any EU Treaty that comes along - with the possible exception of an EU Treaty that abolishes the EU!

There are indeed some among the rejectionists who would oppose that as well. Among the campaigners for a no vote we have
- habitual oppositionists, people who will oppose anything simply because that is their habit.
- conspiracy theorists, who will seek and find a nefarious purpose in any proposal.
- political opportunists, who might see a way of projecting themselves into the public eye.

As I wrote this, names currently associated with the no campaign kept popping into my head. Feel free to do your own categorisation.

sink

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There are indeed some among the rejectionists who would oppose that as well. Among the campaigners for a no vote we have
- habitual oppositionists, people who will oppose anything simply because that is their habit.
- conspiracy theorists, who will seek and find a nefarious purpose in any proposal.
- political opportunists, who might see a way of projecting themselves into the public eye.

JimmyMolloy wrote: »

I would say the EU boys have big plans for us before the second of october comes around.

NO for a second time will be my response to this totalitarian state.

QED

Sam Vimes

Vote yes. The lizard people want you to vote no

RandomName2

View wrote: »

The overwhelming majority of the leading No campaigners here are Eurosceptics who fundamentally reject the EU as it currently exists. For many of them, this is largely because they have deified the concept of national sovereignty and believe the existing pooling/transfer of sovereignty within the EU is inherently wrong. Hence, the EU must be opposed by whatever means necessary.

These Rejectionists can be pretty much guaranteed to oppose any EU Treaty that comes along - with the possible exception of an EU Treaty that abolishes the EU!

Again the 'yes' side has to decipher the 'no' vote on behalf of the public.

Generally the 'yes' side say that those who voted 'no' didn't know what the Lisbon treaty was, were scared by anti-Lisbon propaganda, or couldn't read the voting card properly.

Alternatively 'The overwhelming majority of the leading No campaigners here are Eurosceptics' and can thus be disregarded as idiotic cranks. Horrah! And all those who follow them. Horrah! That's no better an argument, albeit a tad more articulate, than those who say they will vote 'no' to oppose the NWO.

Edit: So anyone who doesn't mention the treaty itself in their complaints don't know what they are talking about, and anyone who does is anti-EU. I get a whiff of neo-patriotism here. Deifiy national soverignty? What about deifying supranationalism, even if it is a little harder since Lisbon lost the Constitution's anthem :-(

djpbarry

RandomName2 wrote: »

Generally the 'yes' side say that those who voted 'no' didn't know what the Lisbon treaty was...

Only because they admitted as much themselves (or at least a sizeable chunk did).