How & why did you vote in the Lisbon Treaty ?

[pikey]

I voted yes because
4. Our abortion protocol is in place.
9. I believe passionately in the importance of adopting the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Doesnt point 4 somewhat conflict with point 9 ? I voted no because I believe in a meaningful rights charter not the watery aspirational fudge sold by the yes side .

[Universal_001]

12. I believe it crucial that Europe be able to rein in the extremism of US foreign policy and the ability of Europe to do that on those issues where it can agree a policy stance is vital. A weak Europe under Nice rules will not be able to challenge the hawks in US foreign policy. A weak Europe will just let the US run riot and that is something I want to see stopped.

...and how would we stop them?

[politicalnewbie]

6. The claim that there was some conspiracy to deny people a vote Europe-wide is demonstrable rubbish. Many EU states are federations and federations don't hold referenda as they are effectively incompatible with the whole point of a federation. Most of the EU states who aren't federations have no history of holding referenda. The 'denial of a vote' is just a lot of Eurosceptic spin. The idea that we can order other countries to use referenda is preposterous. It is entirely a matter for them and their constitutional rules.

Go ahead then demonstrate that it is rubbish. I'm afraid it is a fact that this treaty was designed to avoid referendums and that every effort was done to avoid referendums. Britain promised a referendum on the constitution, but Britons were denied it on the bastard child of that constitution. French too were promised a referendum and then promptly denied it. Kathy Sinnot has commented that in the first meeting of the constitution committee after its defeat in France and Holland, MEP's openly talked about how best to structure the new document so that it wouldn't trigger referenda.

We have perfectly satisfactory human rights in this country, I am unsure why it is so important to adopt a european standard.

I don't trust the motivation behind foreign governments, and have little faith in our own political establishment to care about what is good for this country. The HSE is a perfect example of the governments incompetence.


What I find so hilariously about the claims I've heard coming from Europe and the yes side, is this idea that Nice is a mess and has to be reformed, can I ask then why we were pushed to vote for that treaty as well, and what evidence is there that Lisbon wasn't going to be a "mess" as well? Sounds a lot like the 'change of course' doctrine.

First off Human Rights in this country is good yes... but that doesn't mean that it isn't open to abuse... it very much is the Equal Status Act is a perfect example of this with the Ammended version making it HARDER to take a claim against the Act itself

Secondly the HSE cannot be used to vote down Lisbon... that's just stupid reasoning... the HSE actually has improved since the 1980's ... services are getting better but not quick enough

Nice is a mess ... it was ment as a treaty to pave the way for a federal europe but since both attempts have failed it leaves europe with a bit of a mess ... Ireland could now loose our comissioner because in 2009 the commission MUST be reduced

I voted yes because
4. Our abortion protocol is in place.
9. I believe passionately in the importance of adopting the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Doesnt point 4 somewhat conflict with point 9 ? I voted no because I believe in a meaningful rights charter not the watery aspirational fudge sold by the yes side .

First off the charter would have been good... under the mastrict treaty we have our opt out on abortion and also Ireland alread has abortion available albeit with very strict regulations as to who can have one

[cHeal]

6. The claim that there was some conspiracy to deny people a vote Europe-wide is demonstrable rubbish. Many EU states are federations and federations don't hold referenda as they are effectively incompatible with the whole point of a federation. Most of the EU states who aren't federations have no history of holding referenda. The 'denial of a vote' is just a lot of Eurosceptic spin. The idea that we can order other countries to use referenda is preposterous. It is entirely a matter for them and their constitutional rules.

Go ahead then demonstrate that it is rubbish. I'm afraid it is a fact that this treaty was designed to avoid referendums and that every effort was done to avoid referendums. Britain promised a referendum on the constitution, but Britons were denied it on the bastard child of that constitution. French too were promised a referendum and then promptly denied it. Kathy Sinnot has commented that in the first meeting of the constitution committee after its defeat in France and Holland, MEP's openly talked about how best to structure the new document so that it wouldn't trigger referenda.

We have perfectly satisfactory human rights in this country, I am unsure why it is so important to adopt a european standard.

I don't trust the motivation behind foreign governments, and have little faith in our own political establishment to care about what is good for this country. The HSE is a perfect example of the governments incompetence.


What I find so hilariously about the claims I've heard coming from Europe and the yes side, is this idea that Nice is a mess and has to be reformed, can I ask then why we were pushed to vote for that treaty as well, and what evidence is there that Lisbon wasn't going to be a "mess" as well? Sounds a lot like the 'change of course' doctrine.

First off Human Rights in this country is good yes... but that doesn't mean that it isn't open to abuse... it very much is the Equal Status Act is a perfect example of this with the Ammended version making it HARDER to take a claim against the Act itself

Secondly the HSE cannot be used to vote down Lisbon... that's just stupid reasoning... the HSE actually has improved since the 1980's ... services are getting better but not quick enough

Nice is a mess ... it was ment as a treaty to pave the way for a federal europe but since both attempts have failed it leaves europe with a bit of a mess ... Ireland could now loose our comissioner because in 2009 the commission MUST be reduced

Yes and we were pressured to ratify that as well, and now everyone is in the ************************ because the Eurocrats didn't get their way? That's hardly the way to organise a government.


On the HSE, I didn't vote based on that (as already stated), but used it to show why most people have lost faith in politicians to improve this country in a social sense. Like even during the Celtic Tiger, the economy was one of the few things which was working well, the rest all went to muck IMO.

[greenmachineky]

I voted No for several reaons!

1) Because of the terrible way Europeans treated our fine Eurovision contestant Dustin!
2) Because European teams knocked us out of this years Euro '08 Football championships.
3) Because Holland Knocked us out of Euro '88 and Italy kept us out of world cup '90 semi finals.
4) Because I once met a French person I didnt like, (although I have met dozens I do like).
5) because they don't play GAA in Europe!
6) Because other Europeans dont learn our language, but we are expected to learn theirs, (Irish should be compulsory in all schools in the EU)!
7) Because Enda Kenny wanted us to vote yes! Feck off Enda!

Things that nearly made me vote Yes!

1) Because Sinn Fein wanted us to vote No!
2) Because Libertas wanted us to vote No!
3) Because Coir wanted us to vote No!
4) Because I'm easy!
5) Because I'm sick of seeing Cowen scowling and serious!( the guy needs a sense of humour labotomy)!
6) Because I was terrified of being brutally punished by the french dwarf (sarkozy)
7) Because European Porn is better than Irish!- allegedly!

[moghroth]

I voted NO because I'm Irish and proud to be a pimple on the **** of Europe.

[The OD]

I voted No because I hate democracy, little children, old people and cripples and didnt want to see justice for all.

I also had a urge to do my bit for global warming/climate change/environmental issues - my bit being a negative bit - as soon as I heard voting No was going to destroy the world I signed up for the No vote straight away.

I'm also pretty hard on human rights, so again, if the ardent hope that more people would be denied their human rights I voted no. I want a weak Europe that cant stand up to the US, Russians, Chinese or whoever. I wanted the 'Mad Mullahs' to run rampant and impose Sharia law on us all and ban sausages. I wanted to see people lose their jobs, homes, family and way of life, I wanted longer waits in A&E's, crappier air, more Westlife on the radio and other such terrible things.

Also, I have difficulty reading and with general comprehension - that is, I'm thick as pigsh*i*t so I couldnt read or understand the treaty and thus decided to play it safer.

Yep, general maliciousness, a desire to destroy mankind as you know and an inability to read led me to vote No.*

(Well, thats what I've heard in the last few days anyway.....who am I to naysay our overlords?)

[Defeated Romanticist]

I voted yes because

1. I read the treaty in detail and approved of its contents.

2. It did not change our vetoes on tax and defence.

3. It protects Irish neutrality.

4. Our abortion protocol is in place.

5. Voting No would be counterproductive on the commissioner, as Nice already in law means there will be no automatic right to a commissioner for everyone from the formation of the next commission in November 2009. and Lisbon contains better protections for small countries on the commissioner issue than does Nice.

6. The claim that there was some conspiracy to deny people a vote Europe-wide is demonstrable rubbish. Many EU states are federations and federations don't hold referenda as they are effectively incompatible with the whole point of a federation. Most of the EU states who aren't federations have no history of holding referenda. The 'denial of a vote' is just a lot of Eurosceptic spin. The idea that we can order other countries to use referenda is preposterous. It is entirely a matter for them and their constitutional rules.

7. The claim that Ireland would see its voting weight halved is demonstrable nonsense and based on deliberate misrepresentation of how the voting would work. It also involved blatant misrepresentation of the actual usage of vetoes and QMV, both of whom are rarely used, with most work done by consensus.

8. Many of those on the No side (SF, Coir, Eurosceptics, etc) are groups I would feel physically sick at associating with, unless with overwhelmingly good reasons, and there were not good reasons.

9. I believe passionately in the importance of adopting the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

10. I don't trust the motivation behind the Libertas campaign and am seriously suspicious as to the real motivation behind their campaign.

11. Europe needs better more cohesive structures to deal with energy supply. The current structures are a joke.

12. I believe it crucial that Europe be able to rein in the extremism of US foreign policy and the ability of Europe to do that on those issues where it can agree a policy stance is vital. A weak Europe under Nice rules will not be able to challenge the hawks in US foreign policy. A weak Europe will just let the US run riot and that is something I want to see stopped.

13. The claim that the treaty will facilitate privatisation of health, education and social services when examined proved to be false, with those pushing it deliberately misquoting articles to create a false impression.

14. Most importantly, I took the time to investigate the claims of the No side and not a single claim by them stood up, with some being based on a deliberate calculated misquoting of articles, misrepresenting of legal cases, and wholescale blatant lying. I could stand up the claims of the yes side. I could not stand up a single claim of the no side.

For me voting yes was a no brainer once I studied the treaty. It was a very good deal, far better than the alternative that would exist under Nice. I started off at the end of last year leaning towards a No. On the basis of reading the treaty and finding out facts about the text and how Europe works a Yes vote to me was the only logical conclusion.

For those reasons I thought Lisbon the lesser of two evils and voted Yes.

[greenmachineky]

I voted yes because

1. I read the treaty in detail and approved of its contents.

2. It did not change our vetoes on tax and defence.

3. It protects Irish neutrality.

Wot a load of Bolix Defeated Romanticist!
Where in the Irish constitution does it mention Neutrality??
Article 28 & Article 29 do not mention Neutrality and our High court seems to think that Oil hungry yanks on the way to bomb the ************************e out of Iraq did not infringe our constitution in this regard, if we had an unambigious wording taken to the people asking us if we want to be totally Militarily Neutral or not we could then hopefully be a real Neutral country and stop this erosion of our so called mythical, non existent neutrality!
Bertie promised not to join Partnership for peace in 1997 without a refferrendum, then a few months later after the general election he signed us up anyway!
We are gradually moving further away bit by bit from any notion of Neutrality, That is why I voted NO!!
the common defence policy where you rightly claim we have a Veto is really just a deal to kick start the European Arms industry, which in turn will probably churn out deadly weapons for every tin pot dictator in the world(If the yanks dont sell there first).
Also what good is a veto if Enda bloody Kenny becomes Taoiseach? Many in his Party enthusiastically want us to be part of a European Army!