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

[trackside528]

Originally posted by Garney@Jun 24 2008, 09:24 PM
And trackside, you think that was a fair poll? How many people voted yes because

a) they didnt understand it, but trust the politicians
b) Sure if Sinn Fein voted No, I must vote yes
c ) Eastern European women are great looking
d) We'll be fierce embarrassed if we vote No
e) we got loads of money off the EU in the past

A fair few, no doubt, Garney (I used (e) as the sole justification for my vote myself ), but all that says to me is that the referendum should never have happened in the first place.

 

[Sheikh]

but all that says to me is that the referendum should never have happened in the first place.

Your right Track, there should have been no Referendum and no Treaty until the people of Europe know where the fxxk the runaway train which is the E.U. is going.
We're ratifying Treaty after Treaty and there seems to be no discussion as to where the final destination is for the E.U. I am pro a United Europe as long we get to decide what that unification entails.

 

[qzy]

I was one of the

b) Sure if Sinn Fein voted No, I must vote yes

voters :shy:

If this was forced back to another vote like NiceII I would probably vote no...

 

[Garney]

qzy - IMO, it is one of the best rules of thumb in politics.

 

[Grey]

We're ratifying Treaty after Treaty and there seems to be no discussion as to where the final destination is for the E.U. I am pro a United Europe as long we get to decide what that unification entails.

Sheikh, it seems you speak for many, if this piece from yesterday's Irish Indo is anything to go by:

Tuesday June 24 2008

A new poll confirms that Irish people have a more positive view of the European Union than any other nation, in spite of country's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty earlier this month.

The findings, based on work conducted before the referendum vote, are in line with a snap poll of 2,000 Irish voters conducted immediately after the referendum decision.

The snap poll showed that 80% of those voting No were in favour of the EU.

Foreign minister Micheal Martin told reporters that the No campaigners were "pro-Europe and pro-European Union"....

 

[Sheikh]

First time since the smoking ban Martin has got anything right.

 

[Sara]

Originally posted by trackside528@Jun 24 2008, 02:58 PM
No, Garney, I wouldn't be, as I fear a similar scenario to that which occurred in Ireland will occur elsewhere- i.e. people fail to try to understand the treaty and then end up voting against it due to a combination of lack of understanding or fear of something that's actually not in the treaty, rather than on the actual merits of the treaty.

If you're asking me whether I think a majority of the 29 EU countries would approve it, then yes, I do.

On the other hand some of us who DO understand the Treayy would never vote Yes in a million years

Why assume people are all voting No because they don't understand it? In my experience, the more people do understand about the whole 'project' for European Unification, and the terms of this treaty, the more likely they are to vote against it. I personally can't understand how anyone who has the least pretension to calling themselves a democrat could vote *for* it.

The individual clauses and precise intentions for this and that aspect of governmnt - even defence and banking, legal unification and merging police forces etc etc - are all details beside rhe main question: do you wish to be governed by an unelected, remote and UNDISSMISSABLE bureaucracy, or do you want to retain your ability to throw out your government?

NOTHING ELSE MATTERS

 

[Flagship uberalles]

Originally posted by Headstrong+Jun 25 2008, 03:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Headstrong @ Jun 25 2008, 03:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-trackside528@Jun 24 2008, 02:58 PM
No, Garney, I wouldn't be, as I fear a similar scenario to that which occurred in Ireland will occur elsewhere- i.e. people fail to try to understand the treaty and then end up voting against it due to a combination of lack of understanding or fear of something that's actually not in the treaty, rather than on the actual merits of the treaty.

If you're asking me whether I think a majority of the 29 EU countries would approve it, then yes, I do.

On the other hand some of us who DO understand the Treayy would never vote Yes in a million years

Why assume people are all voting No because they don't understand it? [/b][/quote]
Because most people are like sheep and will do what others tell them to do without bothering to really question it.

Most people also fear change, so if what Trackside says is correct, many will have voted no accordingly.

 

[an capall]

Why assume people are all voting No because they don't understand it?

Because that's what they said.

do you wish to be governed by an unelected, remote and UNDISSMISSABLE bureaucracy,

Remind me of a DISSMISSABLE bureaucracy. The last one I can recall was the European Commission (Santer) in 1999 which resigned under pressure from the European Parliament (ergo the People). But I am sure this one doesn't count.

 

[Bar the Bull]

There are bureaucrats in Whitehall, too, you know.

 

[trackside528]

Originally posted by Headstrong@Jun 25 2008, 03:28 PM
On the other hand some of us who DO understand the Treayy would never vote Yes in a million years

Why assume people are all voting No because they don't understand it? In my experience, the more people do understand about the whole 'project' for European Unification, and the terms of this treaty, the more likely they are to vote against it. I personally can't understand how anyone who has the least pretension to calling themselves a democrat could vote *for* it.

The individual clauses and precise intentions for this and that aspect of governmnt - even defence and banking, legal unification and merging police forces etc etc - are all details beside rhe main question: do you wish to be governed by an unelected, remote and UNDISSMISSABLE bureaucracy, or do you want to retain your ability to throw out your government?

NOTHING ELSE MATTERS

Of course there are Euro-sceptics in Ireland, and people who voted against the treaty on principle (and I certainly have more respect for them than anyone who voted without understanding the treaty- whichever way they voted).

It's my personal opinion that the majority of people who voted did not do so on the merits of the treaty. If the treaty had been passed, I would be saying the same thing, given the haphazard nature of the campaign and the fairly obvious lack of understanding of the treaty many openly expressed the weekend before the treaty.

Of course we have a fundamentally different view of the treaty, Headstrong: I am of the view that it will actually promote transparency (and democracy) while making necessary changes to a creaking bureaucracy that cannot cope much longer (especially with expansion). You view it as the exact opposite.

What part of the EU is the "unelected" part, Headstrong? The commissioners, as I previously stated, do not represent the interests of their national governments, rather they provide overall expertise in a particular field.

 

[Garney]

Indeed, the commissioner in theory does not represent any particular country, in the same way that the executive in Ireland do not represent FF, nor the executive in the US represents the interests of the Republican party. Its all for the good of the EU, US, or Ireland, but everyone knows that the reality is that behind their decisions is the interest groups/parties/countries to which they owe their position.

Using semantics like the commissioners shouldnt be thought of in national terms is another reason why the Yes side get on my nerves. If the treaty was safeguarding the commissioner, I'm sure they Europhiles would be out in force in its defence.