Voting No and being positive about it


Despite the picture, I’m voting no to the Lisbon treaty. for pretty much the reasons outlined here and here. All politics is local and for FF and FG politicians to bully us into thinking that ‘we’ll be the laughing stock of Europe’ if we reject it is so disingenuous as to be plainly patronising. This is not the Eurovision folks, it is a treaty governing the way 27 states are governed. To reject the treaty is not a betrayal of European values or even a rejection of the parts of the text that we can agree with (the Charter of Fundamental Rights, for example). And this is less about all or nothing and more about a re-negotiation of the parts we don’t like. It is a chance to re-orient the EU to be a union of workers and families and communities and local structures and participation at appropriate levels and safety and good health and a clean environment. 

Simply stating that the Treaty is good for Ireland and good for Europe is not good enough. This utterance and style of debate takes power away from me and you both, it reduces the power of the vote that my family fought and died for in 1920. I like to vote positively for things that I can understand and that make sense to me on a human level. Here I am trying to make my own life simpler. Why would I vote for something that makes it more complex? To me, it is that direct a connection. 
Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized

6 thoughts on “Voting No and being positive about it

  1. Agreed sir. Your likening to the Eurovision is all too painfully accurate. And like that there’s a lot of sqwauking going on by the performing Turkeys.

  2. Nice post, Sir! The Yes campaign would have us believe that Europe will abandon us and all the good that has come from our membership will vanish. I think a lot of people forget, if we vote No, things will just continue as they are. It’s not a negative thing!

    “Be Positive, Vote No!” I like it! Fair play!

  3. In the latest disturbing sign of the undemocratic agenda pursued by the Lisbon treaty, Taoiseach Brian Cowen tells his backbenchers that unless they actively campaign for a “yes” vote they will “face consequences”. It seems in the supposedly ‘more democratic’ Europe the Lisbonistas promise us, one casualty will be the right to free debate on behalf of the needs of the constituents where those interests are perceived as conflicting with the opinions of the party-bosses. This is the latest in a long list of disturbing undermining of the democratic values we are told the EU is supposed to be built on. In a debate in the European Parliament some months ago, Labour MEP Pronsius de Rossa was one of the 75% of that body that voted down a motion promising to respect the results of the referendum in Ireland. When questioned on this on Newstalk’s Breakfast Show this morning, party leader Eamon Gilmore bizarrely explained it as a vote that the European Parliament has no say in the Irish referendum. Very clever Eamon, but unfortunately for you and the Treaty’s supporters we did not come down in the last shower. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and it flies like a duck – then chances are it is a duck.

    The ‘more democratic’ Europe we are told will come about if we ratify Lisbon has some curiously undemocratic elements. Firstly, it amounts to a trampling on the democratic rights of the peoples of France and the Netherlands, who have already said a firm “No” to 95% of the provisions in this Treaty that former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern already admitted are contained therein. Across Europe, governments elected on mandates that including holding referenda on the old EU Constitution suddenly had a change of heart after the rejections in France and Holland.

    Some in the “yes” campaign have tried to pretend this is a different Treaty. But that carries no credibility considering the candour with which their counterparts across the European Union have said otherwise. Valery Giscard d’Estaing, former President of the Convention on the Future of Europe that drew up the EU Constitution, has said: “The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content. The draft constitution resulted from a political desire to simplify European institutions, rendered inefficient by recent expansions. It was about creating more democracy and transparency within the European Union. It was about opening the way for a “Constitution for the people of Europe”. And with a candour that is absent from our own political-leaders, he even admits why this is the case: “Otherwise, the proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary. The Brussels institutions have also cleverly reclaimed the process from the – to them – unwelcome intrusion of parliamentarians and politicians in the work of the original drafting Convention. The institutions have re-imposed their language and their procedures – taking us even further away from ordinary citizens.” Czech President Vaclav Kalus has said “”Only cosmetic changes have been made and the basic document remains the same.”. Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister has said “The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it.”. Nicolas Sarkozy has said “A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK.”

    Vote no.

  4. 73man once agin a great post and not just because I agree with you.It would appear to me that despite various smear campaigns and scoffing at the NO campaigners on the part of the government and main political parties, the only thing the No side really need to do is exactly as you have done here…stick to the plain and simple facts.
    The people of Ireland aren’t stupid.

    Oh and b..thats entirely untrue.

  5. There is a complete lack of open information. That already made available is either glib PR or impenetrable giberish. As far as I can see the yes campaign pursues a friedmanite agenda of open market and deregulation. That’s enough for me to be against it. But I am not able to vote in it anyway.

Comments are closed.