Use Lisbon NO Vote to Protest Health Care Debacle?

[twtone]

A relative of mine recently endured a disgusting and degrading few days in one of our prominent Dublin hospitals.

Her husband, a strong Fianna Fail supporter, told me afterwards that he and his children were feeling buyers' remorse about voting Fianna Fail in the general election.

They have now all decided to vote NO in the Lisbon referendum, not because they care much either way about Lisbon, but because they do care about the government's failure to provide a health care system that values Irish people, especially the elderly.

I think it's a good idea. The Lisbon Treaty is of no great importance either way. The sky won't fall if we vote No.

So voting NO is a giltedged opportunity to tell the government what we think of their pathetic performance on health care.

[Pidge]

That's a stupid idea. Every party except SF and the Greens support this treaty. If voting against this treaty punishes FF, then equally it punishes FG and Labour. Why them?

[905]

Of course, the treaty should be voted for on its own terms. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt twtone, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of the No advocates started to suggest voting no as a protest vote.

It works the other way as well, though not as strongly. I think I heard a No advocate complaining about people saying they'd vote Yes just to spite the European right-wing nuts. They were right to complain but it works both ways.

Twtone does raise the question of how many people will vote a certain way out of spite or as a protest. It does no good complaining about such people, both sides should try to counter it somehow (how I don't know).

[michael1965]

I think it's a good idea. The Lisbon Treaty is of no great importance either way. The sky won't fall if we vote No.

The sky won't fall, but it will be very embarrassing for the country if we do vote no. Regardless of whether people like or don't like the treaty, we don't really have much choice but to approve it. Look what happened to France, possibly the most important country in the EU. They voted no, so the treaty was changed in a few inconsequential places. And then the French parliament ratified it anyway, If we vote no, the only possible outcome, will be a demand to vote again (since apparently it can't be ratified by our own parliament), with veiled threats of having to leave the EU. We'll be told in no uncertain terms that 4.5 million people can't hold up the progress of half a billion others.

[independentobserver]

I think it's a good idea. The Lisbon Treaty is of no great importance either way. The sky won't fall if we vote No.

The sky won't fall, but it will be very embarrassing for the country if we do vote no. Regardless of whether people like or don't like the treaty, we don't really have much choice but to approve it. Look what happened to France, possibly the most important country in the EU. They voted no, so the treaty was changed in a few inconsequential places. And then the French parliament ratified it anyway, If we vote no, the only possible outcome, will be a demand to vote again (since apparently it can't be ratified by our own parliament), with veiled threats of having to leave the EU. We'll be told in no uncertain terms that 4.5 million people can't hold up the progress of half a billion others.

What's embarrassing about democracy?

[michael1965]

I think it's a good idea. The Lisbon Treaty is of no great importance either way. The sky won't fall if we vote No.

The sky won't fall, but it will be very embarrassing for the country if we do vote no. Regardless of whether people like or don't like the treaty, we don't really have much choice but to approve it. Look what happened to France, possibly the most important country in the EU. They voted no, so the treaty was changed in a few inconsequential places. And then the French parliament ratified it anyway, If we vote no, the only possible outcome, will be a demand to vote again (since apparently it can't be ratified by our own parliament), with veiled threats of having to leave the EU. We'll be told in no uncertain terms that 4.5 million people can't hold up the progress of half a billion others.

What's embarrassing about democracy?

Nothing. I'm just pointing out that the choice isn't really between Lisbon and the status quo. It's between Lisbon and a pretty dire situation, where we either vote again, or we possibly leave the EU.

[twtone]

So much for democracy!
You can vote any way you like, as long as it's the way WE like.

[Richie Nixon]

I know about my Political Affiliations, and they are disclosed by my avitar, however, I would like to take this opportunity to nominate twtone for "most retarded idea ever award"

[Kildare01]

Although I will be voting NO, it will not be some sort of protest vote....Sure we all had a chance to do that last May!

Lets stick to the issues at hand for this one.

[michael1965]

On the democracy question, I think it would be better if (constitutionally) the Dail was able to ratify these treaties without going to the people, with the proviso of course, that nothing in the treaties is actually against the constitution.

If there is anything in the treaties which goes against the constitution (and there obviously has been in some of them), then we should be asked to vote on those specific issues, rather than effectively inserting the whole treaty into the constitution.