Ireland Votes 'no' To The New E.u. Treaty

I voted no after a lot of soul searching.I resent being told that my vote was a vote for stupidity/immaturity (a colleague told me).I tried reading the treaty but found it incomprehensible.
I am only sorry that I didn't make a few quid out of it-my brother rang me yesterday to say Powers were 2/5 yes and Celtic were 3/1 no.He backed both for a free bet and just to put icing on the cake Powers paid out on both results.
 
Originally posted by Sheikh@Jun 13 2008, 10:24 PM
If the 'No' side was spreading misinformation that needs to be proven. Concerns where aired and rubbished by the 'yes' camp but the treaty was never referred to as to where it stipulated that Irish interests and concerns where protected.
If the Treaty offered protections, point to the relevant paragraph, simple as that.

I do not accept people voted 'no' for domestic reasons.I don't think anyone gives a flying f*ck about the Mahon tribunal.It has been commonly accepted for years that our poiliticians are bent ,it's not a news flash.

I too hope they go ahead with the Treaty. The Irish are pro-Europe, they just want to know what they're voting for. If there is protection for Irish interests in the Treaty they need to be spelt out...literally.
Click to expand...
Why did people vote no then, Sheikh? Because they didn't understand what was in the fucking thing and the "yes" campaign could not spell it out for them.

I would say Luke's view is a fairly common one- people don't like to be bullied into something they don't understand.

That said, I think there is an element of protectionism developing in Irish society in recent times.

As for misinformation, it most defintely went on. There was nothing in the treaty that stipulated Irish neutrality would be violated, yet there was talk (perpetuated by Ganley) of conscription into an EU army. shrug::

After reading the treaty myself, it really is impossible to "point to the relevant paragraph" considering the language is so complex (one of the problems).
 
Originally posted by Grey@Jun 13 2008, 04:45 PM
The Irish people agreed to enlargement (eventually) but decision-making procedures designed for a smaller EU need to be changed in order to make it work.
Click to expand...
Yes; if it is to continue. But not by entrenching power in mechanisms with absolutely no requirement to answer to a democratic vote - ever. And not by passing a Treaty which gives unelected Commissioners the power to veto national political parties which are anti-EU - which would have been the case. The Treaty also provides for the setting up of mechanisms to criminalise dissent and criticism of the EU.

The Irish may well not have understood what they were being asked to decide - not surprising since the whole thing has been as 'obfuscated' as possible to disguise what's really going down here. But that in itself prompted them - quite correctly - to see that a YES vote might be very dangerous for their future ability to decide on their own national future.

The Irish are right to have instinctively voted down the Treaty, and with Suny I hope this is the start of the Great Unravelling. I do not want to live in the Soviet States of Europe; and that's what we would get: Government by an unelected and unaccountable Elite.

I've spent many years obsessed with all this stuff, and I've spent many many hours researching this Treaty, and believe me, it would mean the end of any kind of democratic accountability whatever if it's finally ratified. With no way back, short of war.

Is that what we want? I don't. Federalism almost always ends in violence unless - as with America - it's a genuinely organic process driven by informed consent. I see no consent for the European Project from the peoples of Europe, as opposed to the political class.
 
Originally posted by an capall@Jun 14 2008, 07:59 AM
Federalism almost always ends in violence
Click to expand...

Yes. Those Swiss are nasty fckuers.
Click to expand...
Their federalist state is extremely small, and WAS set up through a process of informed consent.
Moreover there is almost nowhere on earth more democratically governed than Switzerland: anything of any importance to be decided there is subjected to a referendum of the people.

I'm thinking of - eg - the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and similar artificial constructs imposed from above. As I'm sure you're well aware AC.

History is moreover full of them - the Holy Roman Empire and the Spanish Empire, Napoleonic Europe, Eastern Europe in the Soviet era [federalist in all but name] etc etc..... although kingships/dictatorships, these similarly were yokings together of disparate entities which could only implode.

Federal structures which do work, eg pre-EU Germany and Italy [old city states which came together to form one] and America since its inception, do so because they allow a huge amount of local autonomy to the disparate parts


"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
* George Santayana (1905) Life of Reason
 
Originally posted by Headstrong@Jun 14 2008, 12:28 AM
The Treaty also provides for the setting up of mechanisms to criminalise dissent and criticism of the EU.
Click to expand...
I feel like a complete ass for asking this (knowing how difficult the treaty is to read), but where in the treaty does it stipulate this, Headstrong?

Needless to say, I have a very, very different view of Europe, and to compare the EU to the Roman Empire is quite far-fetched IMO.

Good piece by Fintan O'Toole of the Irish Times in today's Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...n/14/ireland.eu
 
Originally posted by trackside528+Jun 14 2008, 02:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (trackside528 @ Jun 14 2008, 02:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Headstrong@Jun 14 2008, 12:28 AM
The Treaty also provides for the setting up of mechanisms to criminalise dissent and criticism of the EU.
Click to expand...
I feel like a complete ass for asking this (knowing how difficult the treaty is to read), but where in the treaty does it stipulate this, Headstrong?

[/b][/quote]
I've been following this for several years on the Open Europe website [among others], and if you go back through all the archives you will find these things. The Treaty is huge - many tomes - and deliberately written so that you have to be an in-depth expert to know what each clause is referring to - you can't hope to understand it as a layman coming to it and just reading it because every clause is a qualifier of a previous clause in another treaty, rather than a proposal in itself.

Nevertheless the mechanisms for a great deal more central political control from the EU has been embedded in it. You can choose not to believe that if you wish - that's what they intend! It sets up mechanisms which give EU law full precedence over all national law - and then provides the mechanisms by which dissent can be eradicated and even criminalised, and anyone who believes that powers which are siezed will not be used, is living in dreamland imo.

I'm getting on now and have no kids, so don't know why I worry so, but if I were younger I'd be out there on the streets instead of droning on about it all on websites!
 
Originally posted by Headstrong@Jun 14 2008, 04:26 PM
It sets up mechanisms which give EU law full precedence over all national law - and then provides the mechanisms by which dissent can be eradicated and even criminalised, and anyone who believes that powers which are siezed will not be used, is living in dreamland imo.
Click to expand...
It is simply not correct to state that the Lisbon Treaty would give European Union law "full precedence" over all aspects of national law. Very similar to the totally false "last nail in the coffin for Irish neutrality argument" perpetuated by the "no" campaign in Ireland.
 
I said SETS UP MECHANISMS

- which it incontrovertibly does, if you look into it properly
as so often, people aren't reading properly what's being said

They are not so stupid as to spell it out for all to see at this point ......
 
Your opinion seems to be that the European Union is set on setting up a bloc of states similar to the Soviet bloc under the complete and total control of Brussels with absolutely no national sovereignty.

I happen to think that is complete horseshit.

Fair enough.
 
Originally posted by Headstrong@Jun 14 2008, 04:26 PM
I've been following this for several years on the Open Europe website [among others], and if you go back through all the archives you will find these things.
Click to expand...
As good a reason as any to vote no.
 
Why did people vote no then, Sheikh? Because they didn't understand what was in the fucking thing and the "yes" campaign could not spell it out for them.

I would say Luke's view is a fairly common one- people don't like to be bullied into something they don't understand.

That said, I think there is an element of protectionism developing in Irish society in recent times.

As for misinformation, it most defintely went on. There was nothing in the treaty that stipulated Irish neutrality would be violated, yet there was talk (perpetuated by Ganley) of conscription into an EU army. 

After reading the treaty myself, it really is impossible to "point to the relevant paragraph" considering the language is so complex (one of the problems).
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with that but I want assurances in simple language. I don't know how you can say the 'No' side was spreading mis-information(although I'n not saying they weren't) when by your own admission it is complex and impossible to translate the meaning of the language.There is no transparency.
 
Iain Martin on the insult to the Irish implied in the EU Establishment reaction [or should I say Nomenklatura...]
I'd be pretty p*ssed if I were Irish...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...6/19/do1904.xml

Meanwhile our House of Lords ratifies the effing treaty last night without even a vote - powered through by that Pillock Kinnock, he and his wife having got obscenely rich on the whole corrupt gravy train.... and with a High Court case currently being heard, and all the opinion polls showing a huge [60% approx] majority against ratification now...

I despair. Our rulers - I can't call them representatives - have lost all pretence of any respect for the will of the people they govern. I wish the Queen would refuse to sign the damn thing, she'd have every right to. But she's too old for the fight, I fear.
 
Yes it's a bit depressing when 95% of the elected representatives of the country are in bed with someone else, especially when we gave them bed to start with.
 
I want somebody to point out to me where in the treaty it says we won't have to eat frogs' legs on Fridays. Until they can do so I will be opposing Lisbon II.

Seriously, opponents of Lisbon, much of what you say about this treaty is wrong. Far from setting out to suppress dissent, the Lisbon treaty actually would have started to recognise that the EU public some democratic rights. The right of access to EU documents, for example, and the recognition of basic human rights and civil liberties at EU as well as national level would have been explicitly acknowledged for the first time.

Opponents of Lisbon are correct when they point out that all previous supranational European projects have failed. The Holy Roman Empire, the Zollverein, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, etc all bit the dust. The odds against the current project succeeding are equally daunting, but the one thing that might give it a chance is that it is based on the voluntary participation of the Member States involved, and that all of them are parliamentary democracies.

Opponents and supporters are both correct to insist that this democratic dimension has to be a defining feature of the EU.
 
I personally think it is a joke that we have to have referenda on issues such as this one. There is absolutely no way that the public should be expected to understand the treaty.

It is a legal document for feck's sake.

Maybe some of you who voted 'no' did so for reasonable(!) reasons. But a fair chunk of those who voted 'no' did so for reasons that make absolutely no sense.

The whole idea of the referendum was a shambles from start to finish. Every crank came out from under every rock in Ireland to warn about why to vote no. They included:

Sheikh,

David Andrews (I know) made a very telling point in the Irish Times yesterday. These politicians are our elected representatives; we are giving them a mandate to govern our country. We should allow them to do so, because the electorate has shown itself completely incapable of doing so themselves.

A referendum for stuff like this is ridiculous.
 
Eh... I didn't express an opinion either way before the referendum , presume your comment was a joke . The only conclusion I could reach on my way to the polling station was that I would only get one chance to vote 'no' and possibly another chance to vote 'yes' .Everything is (re) negotiable.I wasn't going to vote for something where I felt questions where asked but no effort was made to answer them, regardless of who was asking the question. I take Greys point about the frogs legs,perhaps the 'No' camp where raising issues which had no relevance to the treaty. If this was/is the case than the best legal people in the Country should have been wheeled out to explain that or explain the safe guards within the treaty. The 'Yes' campaign merely swatted away any questions raised without actually tackling them.

I believe the People are intelligent enough to make an informed decision if provided with the means to do so, those who are not capable of doing so will take a lead from someone they trust and most people are at least capable of identifying someone when a better brain than their own.

Having said all that, the fact that all the other 'Democracies' in Europe want to go ahead without us is ironic. A small window to Ireland's future in the E.U. perhaps.'Toe the line or don't it doesn't really matter us.'
 
Originally posted by Sheikh@Jun 20 2008, 08:59 AM
I believe the People are intelligent enough to make an informed decision if provided with the means to do so
Click to expand...
That is where we will disagree, Sheikh.

Incidentally, I don't think you voted no for the wrong reasons, but it is pretty clear from listening to vox populi on the radio that some did.
 
Worst letter ever into the Irish Times. I hoped he was taking the *****, but I fear not.

Madam, - In the wake of Ireland's democratic decision, some people are saying we must either repeat our referendum or bear the consequences, even extending to banishment from the EU itself. Well Ireland is in a much stronger position than the would-be dictators realise.

If any attempt is made to "punish" Ireland, or to expel us, we should then apply to become the next state of the United States of America. And we should take our fisheries with us. We have the most valuable fisheries in the entire EU, and through them we have given more to the EU than it has ever given us.

America would greet us with wide-open arms, and the very threat to Europe of having the US on the doorstep would soon awaken the bullies who have contempt for our referendum result.

After all, there are already some 40 million Irish living in the States. It would not take much to join them and we would be very welcome. - Yours, etc,

DERMOT C. CLARKE, Wilson Road, Mount Merrion, Co Dublin.
 
Back
Top