I am prepared to go back to the Irish people

[his holiness nb]

Zaptista, I voted yes and not because any party told me so. My decision was based on the facts.
I'm sure there were many on both sides who voted becuase of either support for their party or protest against the government, thats their choice.

BUT the problem I had with the no campaign was the door to door callers who preyed on the vulnerable and spun them nastly lies about the treaty. They wouldnt dare come out with some of the crap they did on the telly that they fed to old and less politically minded folk at the doors.

Everyone I know seems to have at least one elderly relation who voted no largely because they were told it would lead to legalised abortion.

I am normally against repeat referendums, but due to so many of the reasons for people voting no turning out to be lies, or in the case of the commissioner and tax etc, changed to what the no campaign wanted, I dont see the harm in doing it over again.

The truth is the no campaigns true colours are now showing, all the reasons they spun to vote no have been proved wrong or nullified. Now they need to invent another reason to vote no without just admitting they are anti european union, first and foremost.

Mr Ganleys determination to stop this second refererdum speaks volumes given his shady past.

What exactly is he up to?

Rest assured a no vote will benifit him personally.

[Maguire01]

Maybe a re-run will remove a lot of the 'protest vote' (although it might also increase it!) and people will actually vote on the referendum, rather than side issues.

This is another myth. Are you suggesting that those who voted yes did so on the actual content of the treaty rather than that they were recommended to by their chosen party?

There were 'sheep' on both sides i'm sure - those who voted along their traditional party lines (whether or not they had read or understood the document itself), and those who didn't bother reading it, but believed all the scary stories the No camp broadcast.

[Donagh]

There's a referendum for a united Ireland. It is marginally defeated. Would you not be in favour of another vote to try and push it through?

And by the same score, if the Yes vote won (first or second time around), would you want it challenged as well?

Aye but not before a decent pause of a five or six years, not months.

[Maguire01]

There's a referendum for a united Ireland. It is marginally defeated. Would you not be in favour of another vote to try and push it through?

And by the same score, if the Yes vote won (first or second time around), would you want it challenged as well?

Aye but not before a decent pause of a five or six years, not months.

Even if you suspected that people might not have been properly informed the first time around? That there was ambiguity over what exactly they were voting for (or against)? (I know that's less likely with the UI scenario!)

Also, five or six years after Ireland was united, you wouldn't be going back and testing the outcome again, would you?

[Zapatista]

Zaptista, I voted yes and not because any party told me so. My decision was based on the facts.
I'm sure there were many on both sides who voted becuase of either support for their party or protest against the government, thats their choice.

BUT the problem I had with the no campaign was the door to door callers who preyed on the vulnerable and spun them nastly lies about the treaty. They wouldnt dare come out with some of the crap they did on the telly that they fed to old and less politically minded folk at the doors.

Everyone I know seems to have at least one elderly relation who voted no largely because they were told it would lead to legalised abortion.

I am normally against repeat referendums, but due to so many of the reasons for people voting no turning out to be lies, or in the case of the commissioner and tax etc, changed to what the no campaign wanted, I dont see the harm in doing it over again.

The truth is the no campaigns true colours are now showing, all the reasons they spun to vote no have been proved wrong or nullified. Now they need to invent another reason to vote no without just admitting they are anti european union, first and foremost.

Mr Ganleys determination to stop this second refererdum speaks volumes given his shady past.

What exactly is he up to?

Rest assured a no vote will benifit him personally.

HHnb I campaigned on doors and I did not do what you claim the door callers did. No one I know who called to doors did what you say. I am not saying there weren't sheep on both side but it is clear there was a small amount of them since many did not follow the party line. People voting no is for (insert lie) should not be used to justify re-run anymore than people voting yes for (insert lie).  

What are these reasons you say people voted No?

Perhaps the Government should ask how many people voted Yes thinking the treaty would legalise abortion.

Conscription Voters is used to discribe those who think Lisbon will lead to more militarisation. Anyone who says they voted no due to futher militarisation of Ireland and the Eu is bunged in with those who thought there would be conscription. This is mis-information and it is lies. They are two seperate issues.

Tax is and will be an issue for the EU. It is and will be included in Lisbon as it is directly linked to the market and competition laws. We will have a Veto on it but a Veto is no good when you are afraid to say No to the EU.

What lies regarding a Commissioner are you talking about?

[Zapatista]

There's a referendum for a united Ireland. It is marginally defeated. Would you not be in favour of another vote to try and push it through?

And by the same score, if the Yes vote won (first or second time around), would you want it challenged as well?

Aye but not before a decent pause of a five or six years, not months.

Even if you suspected that people might not have been properly informed the first time around? That there was ambiguity over what exactly they were voting for (or against)? (I know that's less likely with the UI scenario!)

Also, five or six years after Ireland was united, you wouldn't be going back and testing the outcome again, would you?

There is a big difference. You would need to compare Lisbon to a Constitution that accompainied a UI. If the Constitution was rejected you would expect it to be changed or atleast a long gap inbetween.

[Declan]

I wasn't in the country for the campaign or the vote itself so find myself "catching up" on the intricacies of the treaty etc. I would have termed myself Pro European but would have serious questions around the accountability of the commission and "legislators" in Brussels. A friend of mine whose judgment I would respect greatly voted no and gave the following reasons for doing so in a letter to the Times - seems a perfectly logical and rational reason to me:


Madam, - Before the referendum, No voters were called loolahs and lunatics and were accused of being out of their minds. Now, voluble Yes campaigners proclaim to the world that we voted No because we are "anti-Europe" or are gullible souls who bought the "lies" of the No campaign.This simplistic and self-serving analysis may soothe their outrage but is far from the truth in the case of people like myself, who are "pro-Europe" and who decided to vote No without any help from Mary Lou MacDonald or Declan Ganley. In the fading hope that "respecting the will of the people" might mean our leaders make a genuine effort to understand why people voted No, I humbly offer an account of my own reason for ticking the No box.

1. One of the few undisputed facts in the Lisbon debate is that the content of the treaty is at least 90 per cent the same as that of the constitutional treaty rejected by the French and Dutch people. We were told, however, that there are significant differences in the legal form of the two treaties.

2. The question therefore arises as to why so much effort (and taxpayers' money) was invested in changing the form of the constitution treaty while leaving its content more or less intact.

3. This important question has received very little attention in the debate. However, it has been answered in the columns of your newspaper as follows: "As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum" [Garret FitzGerald, June 30th, 2007).

"The political subtext to the 'constitution versus treaty' debate in Britain, the Netherlands, France and Denmark was that passing a constitution would almost certainly require a referendum (which might be rejected), whereas a treaty could be ratified in parliaments" (Jamie Smyth, May 12th, 2008).

Neither of these writers could be accused of peddling anti-Europe "lies" and their answers are convincing to me. The obvious conclusion is that the Lisbon Treaty was drafted with the specific intention of sidestepping ratification by referendum in as many member-states as possible.

4. While an arguable case can be made for ratification by parliamentary process rather than by referendum, the repackaging of the rejected constitutional treaty to avoid referendums looks very much like an underhand attempt to engineer the transfer of sovereignty from the people to those who make our laws, whoever and wherever they may be. At best this is insufferably arrogant; at worst it is dishonest. I voted No against this arrogance and/or dishonesty and for no other reason. I suspect that many other people voted No for similar reasons without any prompting from Libertas, Sinn Féin or Cóir.

If the democratic legitimacy of the European project is of real concern to the great and good who are so cross at us for voting No, they should stop insulting our intelligence by shouting about "lies" and look instead at the Lisbon Treaty itself for the reasons why so many people voted against it. - Yours, etc,     

[his holiness nb]

Zaptista, there were no lies about the comissioner. I'm talking about the abortion scaremongering and the likes.
I know several people, including one immediate relation (my grandmother), who were told the treaty would lead to abortion by a door to door caller.

Of course not everyone calling round did this, but I know for a fact that it happened, and was the reason for people voting no.

[Hardy]

I think any complaint of lying by the 'No' campaign can be "whataboutted" out of existence by asking 'Yes' supporters  to justify the lie that we were voting on Ireland's future in Europe. We were voting on no such thing and won't ever be unless the Irish government were to move unilaterally to secede from the union. This is the only basis upon which our future in Europe could be changed. Even Charlie McCreevey admits that.

The second biggest lie of the 'Yes' campaign was to paint 'No' voters as anti-European. Dirty tricks.

[Zapatista]

I wasn't in the country for the campaign or the vote itself so find myself "catching up" on the intricacies of the treaty etc. I would have termed myself Pro European but would have serious questions around the accountability of the commission and "legislators" in Brussels. A friend of mine whose judgment I would respect greatly voted no and gave the following reasons for doing so in a letter to the Times - seems a perfectly logical and rational reason to me:


Madam, - Before the referendum, No voters were called loolahs and lunatics and were accused of being out of their minds. Now, voluble Yes campaigners proclaim to the world that we voted No because we are "anti-Europe" or are gullible souls who bought the "lies" of the No campaign.This simplistic and self-serving analysis may soothe their outrage but is far from the truth in the case of people like myself, who are "pro-Europe" and who decided to vote No without any help from Mary Lou MacDonald or Declan Ganley. In the fading hope that "respecting the will of the people" might mean our leaders make a genuine effort to understand why people voted No, I humbly offer an account of my own reason for ticking the No box.

1. One of the few undisputed facts in the Lisbon debate is that the content of the treaty is at least 90 per cent the same as that of the constitutional treaty rejected by the French and Dutch people. We were told, however, that there are significant differences in the legal form of the two treaties.

2. The question therefore arises as to why so much effort (and taxpayers' money) was invested in changing the form of the constitution treaty while leaving its content more or less intact.

3. This important question has received very little attention in the debate. However, it has been answered in the columns of your newspaper as follows: "As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum" [Garret FitzGerald, June 30th, 2007).

"The political subtext to the 'constitution versus treaty' debate in Britain, the Netherlands, France and Denmark was that passing a constitution would almost certainly require a referendum (which might be rejected), whereas a treaty could be ratified in parliaments" (Jamie Smyth, May 12th, 2008).

Neither of these writers could be accused of peddling anti-Europe "lies" and their answers are convincing to me. The obvious conclusion is that the Lisbon Treaty was drafted with the specific intention of sidestepping ratification by referendum in as many member-states as possible.

4. While an arguable case can be made for ratification by parliamentary process rather than by referendum, the repackaging of the rejected constitutional treaty to avoid referendums looks very much like an underhand attempt to engineer the transfer of sovereignty from the people to those who make our laws, whoever and wherever they may be. At best this is insufferably arrogant; at worst it is dishonest. I voted No against this arrogance and/or dishonesty and for no other reason. I suspect that many other people voted No for similar reasons without any prompting from Libertas, Sinn Féin or Cóir.

If the democratic legitimacy of the European project is of real concern to the great and good who are so cross at us for voting No, they should stop insulting our intelligence by shouting about "lies" and look instead at the Lisbon Treaty itself for the reasons why so many people voted against it. - Yours, etc,     

But what about abortion?

I wonder was abortion an issue in France and (oops) the Netherlands?

[Hound]

The main problem is not with the removal of Commissioners. The No side all believe the EU commission is an undemocratic body and the change is merely making it more undemocratic. An entire restructure of the Commission is needed but this was not in the Lisbon treaty. The No side attacked what was in the treaty regarding the commission rather than something which was not in the treaty.

Good example of changing the story to suit the circumstances. We didnt hear any of this from the No campaign - all we heard was "Ireland is losing a commissioner - this will bring woe"

Tax is and will be an issue for the EU. It is and will be included in Lisbon as it is directly linked to the market and competition laws. We will have a Veto on it but a Veto is no good when you are afraid to say No to the EU.

To even suggest that people should vote No because at some time in the future a FF or FG led government would agree to corporation tax harmonisation is a lie. A damn lie. But not untypical of the SinnFein/Libertas campaigns.

I'd love to see/hear a proper debate on the issues raised in the letter Declan reproduced, instead of the sensationalist half truths and lies that both Yes and No campaigns prefer.

[carribbear]

This still does not take away from the fact that the No campaign lied through their teeth on alot of issues and will not even tell us where they got their funding from, especially Mr Ganley with his businesses link to the US Military.....

I don't think it's Declan who is behind using Shannon Airport for the low-key duty-free shopping stopoffs

[magpie seanie]

I think Declan and Hardy are hitting the nail on the head here.

some on here, like our government, have spectacularly missed the point. Sinn Féin and Libertas aren'ty the reason we voted no. Abortion, neutrality or even the flippin commissioner aren't the real reason either (sure the commisioner was conceded by Nice). The real reason is that the ordinary people of Ireland know that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then most likely its a duck. This is an EU constitution that the "leaders" of Europe want to get ratified by any means possible. You can have all the declarations you like but all it takes is our government to change their minds and not exercise a veto. So power is being taken from the people. Constitutional rights to decide things for ourselves is being moved into the hands of our goverment. In light of their performance and oft displayed complete lack of understanding of what is happening I think that's not a chance many should be willing to take. The people know this and know they are being lied to. Cowen should do his "patriotic duty" and stand up for the people of this country and stop telling lies.

[Rossfan]

c Cowen ........ stop telling lies.

Ah Jaysus Seanie come on - asking a politician to stop tellin lies...... Some hope of that.
And about the same amount of hope of the arrogant Ganley telling us why he is really opposed to Lisbon.
I suspect he is pursuing a US Neo con agenda of keeping Europe as divided as possible so that whenever the Yanks start another foreign war there will always be at least half a dozen countries in Europe who will back them.
Also a one voice Europe with a strong Currency will of course challenge the US position of "Leader of the Free(sic) World"

[magpie seanie]

Rossfan - no-one really cares about Ganley or what he's saying. He just happens to be on the side that one the last time. The fact that people give him any of their notice is something I find mildly amusing. He has no mandate.