Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Which way will you vote (if at all)

Options
12357…22

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    lanod2407 wrote: »
    Let's face the facts here in this little country: In the past year the Irish people have voted for Two Turkeys (Bertie & Dustin for those of us who haven't had the coffee yet this morning!) - neither of which has managed to go the distance .......... I'd say there's every chance we'll make it three in a row and manage to vote for the Turkey that is the Lisbon Treaty; except this one will definitely go the distance!
    The problem I have with that satement is that FF support in recent polls is around 42%.
    So clearly a lot if not all or more of the people that voted in our 60% turnout election don't agree with you.

    The question is of course why do people feel like that and my answer is to paraphrase,they do vote for Xmas because they think Xmas has largely been delivered in terms of the big party that the last 10 years has been.


  • Options
    #123
    po0k
    Registered Users Posts: 15,815 ✭✭✭✭po0k


    ...if you were a property developer with a thumb on the planning office.


  • Options
    #124
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Mary-Lou wants me to vote no. Garrett Fitzgerald wants me to vote yes.

    I'm voting yes.


  • Options
    #125
    r3nu4l
    Registered Users Posts: 17,399 ✭✭✭✭r3nu4l


    Yes, but living in the UK, I won't get a vote :(


  • Options
    #126
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Bearing in mind the huge foreign population and the fact teh boards is on teh interweb, an option for I am not allowed to vote would have been good.

    oops just saw r3nu4l. Democracy my arse as Jim Royale would say.


    Mike.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    HydeRoad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭HydeRoad


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The question is of course why do people feel like that and my answer is to paraphrase,they do vote for Xmas because they think Xmas has largely been delivered in terms of the big party that the last 10 years has been.

    Well, they are paying for the party now. Only true to form, the ones at the top don't have to worry so much as the little man, who funny enough generations ago were the people FF were supposed to represent...

    Either the result might be NO, or a YES will scrape through very tightly. Either way, it will be an embarrassment to this embarrassment of a government. But will they learn heck from it. We are in this position, an arrogant, befuddled party gloating on the back of ten years of excess and squandered boom, because of ten years of hapless and pathetic opposition. Had the parties been reversed, we would be in exactly the same position.

    Politics in this country is dishonest and dysfunctional. It's all spin and show, no respect for state or citizen. But you have to live in hope...


  • Options
    #128
    dardoz
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 933 ✭✭✭dardoz


    the sad truth is, boards users would be a lot more clued in on the meaning of the treaty and the underlying truths than the general public would be. So despite how much ahead the No vote is here, I dare say the ignorant masses of FF, FG etc sheep will tell a different story.


  • Options
    #129
    eugenedoc1
    Registered Users Posts: 55 ✭✭eugenedoc1


    nil


  • Options
    #130
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    dardoz wrote: »
    the sad truth is, boards users would be a lot more clued in on the meaning of the treaty and the underlying truths than the general public would be. So despite how much ahead the No vote is here, I dare say the ignorant masses of FF, FG etc sheep will tell a different story.

    You make it sound like only morons are voting Yes, people who haven't got a clue. The obvious point that you are missing is that the most informed people here (from everything I've seen), including the likes of Scofflaw and sink etc, are very much in favour of a Yes vote. And most of the No camp hee keep presenting points (like the taxation point) that has been refuted and proven to be untrue.


  • Options
    #131
    AckwelFoley
    Registered Users Posts: 12,556 ✭✭✭✭AckwelFoley


    dardoz wrote: »
    the sad truth is, boards users would be a lot more clued in on the meaning of the treaty and the underlying truths than the general public would be. So despite how much ahead the No vote is here, I dare say the ignorant masses of FF, FG etc sheep will tell a different story.

    Ironic, considering they are the ones that get their arses out and vote rather than chatting about it in a pub.

    ignorant masses :rolleyes:

    Ignorant comment


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    dardoz wrote: »
    the sad truth is, boards users would be a lot more clued in on the meaning of the treaty and the underlying truths than the general public would be. So despite how much ahead the No vote is here, I dare say the ignorant masses of FF, FG etc sheep will tell a different story.

    That's bollox.


  • Options
    #133
    faceman
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,587 CMod ✭✭✭✭faceman


    A yes from me. Admittedly it was very difficult until recently to get an independent interpretation of the treaty and pro's cons etc.

    I find it disturbing that many of the main points from weeks ago for the No campaign related to abortion, neutrality and corporation tax, which if the relevent No campaigners had done the homework, they would learn were a non issue.

    Also some of the campaigners for No wanted us to vote No to EU entry and joining the Euro etc yet we have had major benefits as a result


  • Options
    #134
    mcaul
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,493 ✭✭✭mcaul


    Generally from what I've read of the referendum, it seems to be positive - so i be voting yes.

    SF's argument that a better deal is possible doesn't wash as when it was negotiated Ireland held the EU presidency and was riding a crest of a wave with NI peace. Also Tony Blair & former french & italian prime ministers were also partial to Ireland.

    Now the scene is different. Gordon Brown is probably on way out, so couldn't care less about Ireland, Sarkozy & Bertesloni are not endeared towards Irelandand Merkel couldn't care less either. - Basically, if there's a no vote, a newer deal may be watered down and provide a lot less safety for Ireland than the current proposals.

    Another simpler argument, is Europe works together for the common good for all members. The No side seems to suggest that Europe wants to step on Ireland's toes and make Ireland do things other countries wouldn't do - simply not the case. My fear would be that we lose a lot more by voting no than voting yes.


  • Options
    #135
    Daftendirekt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Daftendirekt


    mcaul wrote: »
    Another simpler argument, is Europe works together for the common good for all members. The No side seems to suggest that Europe wants to step on Ireland's toes and make Ireland do things other countries wouldn't do - simply not the case. My fear would be that we lose a lot more by voting no than voting yes.

    +1

    Looks like it's gonna be close anyway...


  • Options
    #136
    Sleepy
    Registered Users Posts: 24,176 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    I'm not voting. I don't trust our government's competence and therefore can't rely on their 8 page summarization of a circa 250 page treaty to give me all the information I need to cast a vote. I don't trust Libertas as I've no idea who they are or who's funding them (Matt Cooper wasn't able to get an answer out of their spokesperson so I doubt I can).

    Ergo - I need to read the entire treaty (and the treatises it ammends) in order to cast an educated vote.

    Again, listening to the Last Word, they had a woman on from a UK organisation who translate legaleze into comprehensible English and campaign for plain language usage in legislation who said it took her a week to get through the treaty and those it's ammending. Given her job, it's fair to assume it would take me longer than a week to get through it (and would make me question how many of the politicians advocating we vote one way or the other are as knowledgeable about it as they should be).

    As I don't have a week of free time to get through the text, I'm abstaining as I refuse to cast an uneducated vote.


  • Options
    #137
    BJC
    Registered Users Posts: 731 ✭✭✭BJC


    Sleepy wrote: »
    I'm not voting. I don't trust our government's competence and therefore can't rely on their 8 page summarization of a circa 250 page treaty to give me all the information I need to cast a vote. I don't trust Libertas as I've no idea who they are or who's funding them (Matt Cooper wasn't able to get an answer out of their spokesperson so I doubt I can).

    Ergo - I need to read the entire treaty (and the treatises it ammends) in order to cast an educated vote.

    Again, listening to the Last Word, they had a woman on from a UK organisation who translate legaleze into comprehensible English and campaign for plain language usage in legislation who said it took her a week to get through the treaty and those it's ammending. Given her job, it's fair to assume it would take me longer than a week to get through it (and would make me question how many of the politicians advocating we vote one way or the other are as knowledgeable about it as they should be).

    As I don't have a week of free time to get through the text, I'm abstaining as I refuse to cast an uneducated vote.

    Do you not feel that in this particular referendum, a "No" vote would be the better choice if you're not properly versed in the treaty. After all, a "No" vote doesn't change anything and allows all to continue as is.


  • Options
    #138
    Cas2007
    Closed Accounts Posts: 71 ✭✭Cas2007


    ooo wait i voted no but im too young to vote. VOTE NO and nothing will change


  • Options
    #139
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    BJC wrote: »
    Do you not feel that in this particular referendum, a "No" vote would be the better choice if you're not properly versed in the treaty. After all, a "No" vote doesn't change anything and allows all to continue as is.

    Thats just rubbish BCJ. A No vote is a rejection of the Treaty and if you don't know enough about it how can you reject it? While I don't agree that (s)he needs to read the entire Treaty and affected Treaties to fully understand it (there are good sites that break it down well enough) I do agree with the whole, "If I don't know, I don't know enough to vote" standpoint. Its perfectly reasonable and logical. I would very much advocate that everyone educate themselves and get out to vote, but at the same time I would also advocate that noone vote either way out of ignorance.


  • Options
    #140
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    Cas2007 wrote: »
    ooo wait i voted no but im too young to vote. VOTE NO and nothing will change

    Yes because the EU is perfect as it is and can't possibly improve! :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #141
    mcaul
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,493 ✭✭✭mcaul


    Sleepy wrote: »
    I'm not voting. I don't trust our government's competence and therefore can't rely on their 8 page summarization of a circa 250 page treaty to give me all the information I need to cast a vote. I don't trust Libertas as I've no idea who they are or who's funding them (Matt Cooper wasn't able to get an answer out of their spokesperson so I doubt I can).
    .


    Its not just the current government - it was a multi-party group who negotiated the terms of the treaty and they did very well considering Ireland has just 4 million people.

    As before, my fear is too many people will take the Sinn Fein line and say a better deal is possible, but the reality is different. All the new accession states are looking for more and if this is renegotiated the chances are Ireland will lose out on some of the more favourable clauses that were agreed when we held the EU presidency.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    HydeRoad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭HydeRoad


    molloyjh wrote: »
    A No vote is a rejection of the Treaty and if you don't know enough about it how can you reject it? While I don't agree that (s)he needs to read the entire Treaty and affected Treaties to fully understand it (there are good sites that break it down well enough) I do agree with the whole, "If I don't know, I don't know enough to vote" standpoint. Its perfectly reasonable and logical. I would very much advocate that everyone educate themselves and get out to vote, but at the same time I would also advocate that noone vote either way out of ignorance.

    But here's another telling point.

    Regardless of your views in favour or against the treaty, the fact is that maybe 30% or 40% of the population will not vote, and of those that do, at least half, and probably much more, will vote out of ignorance.

    What kind of mandate for a treaty is that, regardless of whether it is good or bad?

    I am open to the view that a treaty is necessary. I am open to the view that a lot of this is probably good, and negotiated in general with the best of intentions. I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories, as much as I question the whole direction of politics in general.

    But the whole POINT of politics is to work FOR the public and WITH the public. In practice, politics shuts itself into a smoky room, negotiates treaties without reference to the public, and then spins a rhetoric which the public is supposed to meekly submit to, on the basis that politics somehow, through divine intervention, knows what is good for everyone.

    Like I say, I am open that much of the treaty is for the best of intentions, but there is no way on Earth any member of Fianna Fáil in particular, or any of the political parties, can sell it to me, because they are totally discredited for a hundred and one different reasons. Because they do seem to promote a sheep like mentality among the public - do what we say and take what we dish out, and do not question.

    Arrogance in politics tears asunder all the best of intentions, and leaves too many people cold. This treaty has no mandate unless a majority of the public vote for it with their hearts, and not out of ignorance or sheep like tendencies. And unfortunately, too much damage has been done, too many people are cold to the political process.


  • Options
    #143
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    HydeRoad wrote: »
    But here's another telling point.

    Regardless of your views in favour or against the treaty, the fact is that maybe 30% or 40% of the population will not vote, and of those that do, at least half, and probably much more, will vote out of ignorance.

    What kind of mandate for a treaty is that, regardless of whether it is good or bad?

    I am open to the view that a treaty is necessary. I am open to the view that a lot of this is probably good, and negotiated in general with the best of intentions. I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories, as much as I question the whole direction of politics in general.

    But the whole POINT of politics is to work FOR the public and WITH the public. In practice, politics shuts itself into a smoky room, negotiates treaties without reference to the public, and then spins a rhetoric which the public is supposed to meekly submit to, on the basis that politics somehow, through divine intervention, knows what is good for everyone.

    Like I say, I am open that much of the treaty is for the best of intentions, but there is no way on Earth any member of Fianna Fáil in particular, or any of the political parties, can sell it to me, because they are totally discredited for a hundred and one different reasons. Because they do seem to promote a sheep like mentality among the public - do what we say and take what we dish out, and do not question.

    Arrogance in politics tears asunder all the best of intentions, and leaves too many people cold. This treaty has no mandate unless a majority of the public vote for it with their hearts, and not out of ignorance or sheep like tendencies. And unfortunately, too much damage has been done, too many people are cold to the political process.

    Okay there are a few points in here on which I think we agree, but the main thrust of your argument is a bit confusing to me. At what stage do you think the public should get involved in these things? And should we get involved in all matters of national importance? If so where does it end? Budgets, law making, health service reform? Sure Governments would never get anything done then! It is their job to go away and negotiate these things on our behalf. Thats what we elect them to do. And they don't know whats best for us by divine inspiration, but they do make what they deem as the best possible choices after receiving our clearance to do so based on their own judgement.


  • Options
    #144
    Zube
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,502 ✭✭✭Zube


    Voting Yes, as I have in every Euro-referendum since I got a vote.

    Usual coalition of Shinners, neutrality freaks, ultraCatholics, isolationists and stick-it-to-the-Government protest voters on the No side.


  • Options
    #145
    VoidStarNull
    Closed Accounts Posts: 148 ✭✭VoidStarNull


    BJC wrote: »
    Do you not feel that in this particular referendum, a "No" vote would be the better choice if you're not properly versed in the treaty. After all, a "No" vote doesn't change anything and allows all to continue as is.

    A "No" vote will certainly not lead to things staying as they are. It will force the EU to find an alternative way to reform its institutions. What that way might be is not possible to say right now. Ireland's negotiating position will be weakened by a "NO" at this stage because the view will be taken that Ireland's negotiators cannot deliver acceptance no matter what concessions are granted.


  • Options
    #146
    Khannie
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 37,485 Mod ✭✭✭✭Khannie


    Zube wrote: »
    Usual coalition of Shinners, neutrality freaks, ultraCatholics, isolationists and stick-it-to-the-Government protest voters on the No side.

    Hard not to notice this tbh. I'm still undecided. A few things bothering me at the moment:

    1) Various foreign politicians bullying for a Yes. This is really irritating me.
    2) No complete document and no attempt to publish one.
    3) Vote by the parliament which agreed NOT to abide by our vote.
    4) No plan B. Why not?
    5) Very poor attempt by the government to educate the public in advance of the treaty.

    Having said all of the above, it looks to me very much like the "No" campaign is just full of lies. Also, I'm very aware that the EU does need reform to facilitate the larger number of countries.


  • Options
    #147
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,793 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Khannie wrote: »
    1) Various foreign politicians bullying for a Yes. This is really irritating me.
    Ignore them. While you're at it, ignore the ones arguing (bullying is a very pejorative term) for a No.
    2) No complete document and no attempt to publish one.
    Not true. The consolidated treaties have been available for months.
    3) Vote by the parliament which agreed NOT to abide by our vote.
    Done to death. Stunt amendment; an affront to parliamentary procedure.
    4) No plan B. Why not?
    Lisbon is plan B.
    5) Very poor attempt by the government to educate the public in advance of the treaty.
    No argument there.


  • Options
    #148
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    Khannie wrote: »
    Hard not to notice this tbh. I'm still undecided. A few things bothering me at the moment:

    1) Various foreign politicians bullying for a Yes. This is really irritating me.
    2) No complete document and no attempt to publish one.
    3) Vote by the parliament which agreed NOT to abide by our vote.
    4) No plan B. Why not?
    5) Very poor attempt by the government to educate the public in advance of the treaty.

    Having said all of the above, it looks to me very much like the "No" campaign is just full of lies. Also, I'm very aware that the EU does need reform to facilitate the larger number of countries.

    1. I don't like that wither but I'm refusing to let it impact how I vote. Let them say what they will, and then lets vote based on the Treaty alone.

    2. The Referendum Commission sent a doc to each and every registered voter in the country that covered the Treaty.

    3. To my knowledge this didn't happen, in the way in which it has been put across at least. Either way if it did it did so with the priviso that we are not included.

    4. No Plan B, because this is Plan B. It has been ratified by pretty much everyone and we have been given a really good deal with it all things considered. There are no more concessions thy can give u, so if we say no to this the general attitude will be that they were willing to give us as much as they possibly could and we still weren't happy. We are not the centre of the EU and can't expect to get what we want when we want it all the time like some spoilt child (which is exactly what some of the No camp people sound like).

    5. Whole-heartedly agree. However just as in point 1 I'm not going to let their failure in this regard impact on the issue at hand.

    My advice is to vote yes as there are numerous reasons that we should (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055310477) and because the No camp is full of bull-crap for the most part.


  • Options
    #149
    HydeRoad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭HydeRoad


    molloyjh wrote: »
    Okay there are a few points in here on which I think we agree, but the main thrust of your argument is a bit confusing to me. At what stage do you think the public should get involved in these things? And should we get involved in all matters of national importance? If so where does it end? Budgets, law making, health service reform? Sure Governments would never get anything done then! It is their job to go away and negotiate these things on our behalf. Thats what we elect them to do. And they don't know whats best for us by divine inspiration, but they do make what they deem as the best possible choices after receiving our clearance to do so based on their own judgement.

    Aha, they are elected to represent us and work on our behalf. Now allowing for not pleasing all the people all the time, why is there constant uproar about health, education, transport, jobs, a myriad of issues that directly affect ordinary people on a daily basis? Governments are elected by the people to organise these things, and end up catering to vested interests more often than not. Our own government of the past ten years has done so glutinously, to the expense of ordinary people who cannot afford a home to live in.

    Look across Europe. Riots in France over jobs and immigration. Spanish truckers blockading that country over the cost of fuel. Back home, a country riven by argument over whether we should have a public health service, or privatise everything. What will the treaty do towards the issues that really affect people? Spell that out, and people might have a genuine reason for voting YES. If there is to be a YES vote, let it be because people believe in the substance of it, not because they are spun a load of horror stories on either side of the debate.


  • Options
    #150
    nag
    Registered Users Posts: 410 ✭✭nag


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Because it's a single quote taken out of context from an English translation of a French source.
    Well if that's the case then point me to a source which translated it correctly and explains the context from which it was taken.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    And round and round and round and round we go, with the same old tired crap.

    This has been addressed approximately four hundred million times already on this forum alone.
    Well forgive me for not reading every single thread on the Treaty so I know what has been addressed and what hasn't.
    Instead of exaggerating from your high-horse, why don't you point me to where this has been addressed, adequately and I will gladly read it.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I strongly recommend you take your own advice.
    Well that's not insulting in the slightest, especially coming from someone who seems to be so highly regarded here.
    Never did I say that I was voting no based ONLY on the points I made. Of course I have read up on the Treaty and I've listened to both sides of the debate and I have made an informed decision as best I can.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    HydeRoad wrote: »
    Aha, they are elected to represent us and work on our behalf. Now allowing for not pleasing all the people all the time, why is there constant uproar about health, education, transport, jobs, a myriad of issues that directly affect ordinary people on a daily basis? Governments are elected by the people to organise these things, and end up catering to vested interests more often than not. Our own government of the past ten years has done so glutinously, to the expense of ordinary people who cannot afford a home to live in.

    Look across Europe. Riots in France over jobs and immigration. Spanish truckers blockading that country over the cost of fuel. Back home, a country riven by argument over whether we should have a public health service, or privatise everything. What will the treaty do towards the issues that really affect people? Spell that out, and people might have a genuine reason for voting YES. If there is to be a YES vote, let it be because people believe in the substance of it, not because they are spun a load of horror stories on either side of the debate.

    The Treaty is not meant to do anything for many domestic issues like health service. Thatis a problem for our Dail and not for the EU. The cost of fuel is something that nobody can really do anything about for the moment due to demand and instability in the Middle East. That is not something the EU could ever fix. Their commitment, however, to the global warming issue will lead down the path of renewable energy sources which would ultimately help this issue. Most of the issues that affect people day to day are still going to be dealt with at a national level, not an EU level.

    However there are benefits (I've lost count the number of times I've referenced this post today!): http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055310477


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement