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
1…6791112…22

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    Zube
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,502 ✭✭✭Zube


    Rb wrote: »
    Regarding "waiting for a better deal", I'm not too sure as I can't really tell what'll happen if a no goes through.

    Nothing bad will happen, Libertas told me so, and their name sounds a bit like Liberty, so that's kind of cool.

    Also, Mary Lou MacDonald and Eamonn Dunphy are against it, and I've always thought they'd make a hot couple, so there's that to consider.

    Finally, Brian Cowen is kind of funny-looking isn't he?


  • Options
    #243
    Irish and Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Brilliant. Now go and find the corresponding section in the Constitution, prior to the proposed amendment, and tell me how it differs in substance. That's a completely different thing.

    I'll tell you how is differs mate!

    It refers to a post Lisbon EU which will have far greater power than its current counterpart. After reading the Yes and No arguments, Lisbon is basically a blank cheque IMO!

    Regards!


  • Options
    #244
    Hugh_C
    Registered Users Posts: 2,852 ✭✭✭Hugh_C


    I'm voting yes because I've listened to reasoned argument from both FF and FG TDs in my constituency as well as watched Mary Lou and that creep Ganley on TV and have concluded that YES is the only reasonable choice. The NO camp is scaremongering. We'll be marginalised if we return a NO and Biffo and the lads won't be able to negotiate any better

    Khannie wrote: »
    5) Very poor attempt by the government to educate the public in advance of the treaty.

    I disagree Khannie, a booklet in every household, or a downloadable PDF here. It's not that hard to look up on the web ...


  • Options
    #245
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    The NO side are clearly ahead at the moment here on boards....now the question is this: Do we have more anarchists with the internet than working class people without it in the country (ones who will go out and vote at that!)? :D


  • Options
    #246
    PrivateEye
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,283 ✭✭✭PrivateEye


    The NO camp is scaremongering. We'll be marginalised if we return a NO

    Thats the Yes side eh...scaremongering.
    Our position in Europe is safe.
    We shouldn't accept a bad deal for fear we'll be marginalised.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    PrivateEye wrote: »
    Thats the Yes side eh...scaremongering.
    Our position in Europe is safe.
    We shouldn't accept a bad deal for fear we'll be marginalised.

    What exact elements do you think we could get improved for Ireland? We already have opt outs on the most important policy areas going from unanimity to QMV and we still have the veto on the remaining major issues. Every other country is in the same boat re Commissioners (which shouldn't matter as they shouldn't be operating as a representative of their member state). What are we losing out on that we could avoid losing out on? So many people have said its a bad deal, well time to put your money where your mouth is and tell us exactly what could be changed to rectify that.....


  • Options
    #248
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,075 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    PrivateEye wrote: »
    We shouldn't accept a bad deal for fear we'll be marginalised.

    And we shouldn't reject a fair, compromise deal (Lisbon) which is better than the status quo in a vain hope that by doing so the other EU countries will be willing to concede more for Ireland.


  • Options
    #249
    Bacchus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,699 ✭✭✭Bacchus


    PrivateEye wrote: »
    Thats the Yes side eh...scaremongering.
    Our position in Europe is safe.
    We shouldn't accept a bad deal for fear we'll be marginalised.

    My first post on the Lisbon treaty. Totally agree with the above. Both sides have been scaremongering and I think it's a shame. Why can't they trust to public to listen to the facts and make up their own minds instead of coming out with the likes of "Vote Yes or Europe will get pissy with us" and "Vote No because they took yer commissioner!!" :p

    I'm voting yes because there are positives to the treaty and the No campaign has not convinced me that the cons are really that bad at all (Commissioner, neutrality, tax, voting power etc). We've got equality in this treaty as far as I'm concerned which is all I want. Sure, people say we've lost voting power and commissioner for 5 years but there are a lot of countries in the EU, what gives us the right to have the biggest piece of the pie. We're all in the same boat, we've got (in my eyes) a fair system in place and we've got vetos in the important areas.

    The only grey area for me is the whole tax thing. I don't actually understand it very well.


  • Options
    #250
    Red Alert
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 7,484 ✭✭✭Red Alert


    I accidentally clicked yes, although I'm a no.


  • Options
    #251
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,075 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    Bacchus wrote: »
    The only grey area for me is the whole tax thing. I don't actually understand it very well.

    Scofflaw made a post on it which is pretty good at covering all/most of the bases:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56207163&postcount=32


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    Bacchus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,699 ✭✭✭Bacchus


    Red Alert wrote: »
    I accidentally clicked yes, although I'm a no.

    I think you're legally obliged to vote yes now on Thursday.


  • Options
    #253
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    Bacchus wrote: »
    My first post on the Lisbon treaty. Totally agree with the above. Both sides have been scaremongering and I think it's a shame. Why can't they trust to public to listen to the facts and make up their own minds instead of coming out with the likes of "Vote Yes or Europe will get pissy with us" and "Vote No because they took yer commissioner!!" :p

    I'm voting yes because there are positives to the treaty and the No campaign has not convinced me that the cons are really that bad at all (Commissioner, neutrality, tax, voting power etc). We've got equality in this treaty as far as I'm concerned which is all I want. Sure, people say we've lost voting power and commissioner for 5 years but there are a lot of countries in the EU, what gives us the right to have the biggest piece of the pie. We're all in the same boat, we've got (in my eyes) a fair system in place and we've got vetos in the important areas.

    The only grey area for me is the whole tax thing. I don't actually understand it very well.

    Having read further on this there are 2 ways in which the EU could potentially implement this CCCTB thing.

    1. Propose it and get unanimous agreement from all member states. This is highly unlikely to happen given that we oppose it along with the UK, Estonia, Slovakia and Lithuania. At least 1 of us will use our veto, which is all that is needed.

    2. Propose to modify the policy area from unanimity to QMV so as to avoid the possibility of a veto. This requires unanimity also though so one of the 5 above will inevitably block this change.

    Our taxation policies are safe so long as one member state either blocks any legislation or blocks any shift from unanimity.


  • Options
    #254
    thebaldsoprano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭thebaldsoprano


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Brilliant. Now go and find the corresponding section in the Constitution, prior to the proposed amendment, and tell me how it differs in substance.

    Ehm, given that I've gone to a little trouble to find the text to support my arguments, how about you show a little courtesy and do the same?

    I thought the idea here is to debate things, not to issue orders, maybe I'm mistaken.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    That's a completely different thing.

    Arguably true, but the net effect is the same, the politicians get to pass laws contrary to our constitution without asking the electorate and having a referendum.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The EU has primacy over national constitutions. That's true of all member states, and it has been true for us since 1973.

    Really, then why have we been having referendums over the different treaties they've been passing since then, including this one on Thursday.
    It's quite unlikely that our politicians are just being nice by giving us a chance to vote on this if they don't have to.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I do. It's in perfectly clear English (taken in context). With respect, perhaps that reflects more on your comprehension skills than on the language used. It's an amending treaty. If you want to know the effect of what you've quoted, you look up the relevant treaties and apply the changes.

    Good for you that you've done some research, understand the issues at hand and are voting on that rather than the propaganda that's doing the rounds. I really respect that.

    As for the rest of what you say here, it'd be useful if you'd refrain from ad hominem [1]. I'm just an ordinary voter with no political or legal training trying to make sense of the matters at hand and obviously not wanting to vote in something I don't understand. There're plenty of other people in my shoes.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Alternatively, you could read the consolidated version that has been published, showing the effect of the changes - all the hard work done for you.

    Afaik, we're not voting on the consolidated version.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Better yet, you could look up the wealth of information that's been published about the treaty by the Referendum Commission and other bodies.

    We're not voting on this either and a lot of published information on this is of questionable objectivity and clarity.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Again, with all due respect, if you think a psychiatrist is the right person to interpret a legal document, you need to do a lot more research before you can cast an informed vote.

    Ad hominem again... Just to clear things up I was just using an analogy, last time I checked Michael Jackson wasn't a legal document, maybe he is these days after his latest round of surgery :)
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    In other words, you can't refute anything he's said.

    My good God, with due respect, this is a little arrogant...

    I wasn't planning to refute anything he said, just have issue with the fact that it's recycled propaganda. It's with what he didn't say that I've got a problem.

    1. Ad hominem, Latin for argument against the person.
    This is basically the practice of attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument they're making.
    Considered weak debating practice and bad form.


  • Options
    #255
    S.I.R
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,837 ✭✭✭S.I.R


    vote yes because everyones voting no.


  • Options
    #256
    cailin_donn
    Registered Users Posts: 133 ✭✭cailin_donn


    I'd vote no, if I could, stupid age requirements *shakes fist angrily*

    hmm could that be seen as ageist?


  • Options
    #257
    Hermy
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 11,315 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hermy


    I will be voting No in this referendum in support of the French and Dutch voters who resoundingly rejected this Treaty under the guise of the E.U. Constitution, and in support of the countless millions across the rest of Europe who were not afforded the right to vote Yay or Nay on such a crucial matter for the fututre of Europe.

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • Options
    #258
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    thebaldsoprano wrote: »
    Ehm, given that I've gone to a little trouble to find the text to support my arguments, how about you show a little courtesy and do the same?
    You were asked to provide text actually and you didn't why was that?
    I thought the idea here is to debate things, not to issue orders, maybe I'm mistaken.
    Again you were asked to support your arguments-OB does when asked.
    Arguably true, but the net effect is the same, the politicians get to pass laws contrary to our constitution without asking the electorate and having a referendum.
    Lol theres an inherent contradiction there.
    You cannot pass a law either in Europe or here that covers Ireland if it conflicts with Bunracht na hEireann.
    Thats why we have referenda.
    Really, then why have we been having referendums over the different treaties they've been passing since then, including this one on Thursday.
    It's quite unlikely that our politicians are just being nice by giving us a chance to vote on this if they don't have to.
    All Previous treaties have already been passed via referendum so they aren't in question here.
    Good for you that you've done some research, understand the issues at hand and are voting on that rather than the propaganda that's doing the rounds. I really respect that.

    As for the rest of what you say here, it'd be useful if you'd refrain from ad hominem [1]. I'm just an ordinary voter with no political or legal training trying to make sense of the matters at hand and obviously not wanting to vote in something I don't understand. There're plenty of other people in my shoes.
    I'd advise doing a search of scofflaws posts and read the last couple of hundred of them.
    That won't take too long and it will give you a feel for how unfounded a lot of the No campaign points are.


    If you still want to vote no after that exercise,I'll be baffled to be honest.


  • Options
    #259
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Hermy wrote: »
    I will be voting No in this referendum in support of the French and Dutch voters who resoundingly rejected this Treaty under the guise of the E.U. Constitution, and in support of the countless millions across the rest of Europe who were not afforded the right to vote Yay or Nay on such a crucial matter for the fututre of Europe.
    I see.
    Could you explain then why french voters brought in a new right wing government after that referendum by a landslide on a mandate to impliment the improved version?


  • Options
    #260
    Hermy
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 11,315 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hermy


    I have absolutely no idea why the French, or indeed anyone else, votes one way or the other but I would like to see people being given the opportunity to vote.

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • Options
    #261
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    But they were and they voted in sarkosi who is in favour of the new treaty.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    grames_bond
    Registered Users Posts: 9,820 ✭✭✭grames_bond


    ‘In Article 122(2) the second sentence shall become the first subparagraph of Article 117a(2); it shall be amended as set out above in point 102.’

    ah ye thats totally clear in every way, how can we say no?! :rolleyes: VERY EASILY! a treaty that cannot be read is trying to hide something (patriot act anyone?!)

    and do you want to know why the main Irish partied are campaigning for a yes vote? if the treaty is ratified then these parties (which ever one is in power) will have the same salary, the same benifits, the same holidays, the same everything except LESS accountability! they can pass the buck on any area in which the people are not happy with and blame the EU!

    and gimme a break on the "ireland still has a veto on taxation" bull, anyone heard of political lobbying? other countries could easily use their superior voting powers on other areas to vote against ireland and force us to back down on our taxation stance...one taoiseach, one MEP will buckle sooner or later, its inevitable!

    If europe aint broke, don't try fix it!! vote no


  • Options
    #263
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    pouffie is spamming, so far he has posted that article verbatim in three threads. He needs to be banned.


  • Options
    #264
    Hermy
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 11,315 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hermy


    Deleted User wrote: »
    But they were and they voted in sarkosi who is in favour of the new treaty.

    Sarkosi may be in favour of the Treaty but he is but one individual. I would have preferred that all member states had a referendum on this hugely important issue rather than just us Irish voting on behalf of the four or five hundred million others who don't get to have their say.

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • Options
    #265
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Hermy wrote: »
    Sarkosi may be in favour of the Treaty but he is but one individual. I would have preferred that all member states had a referendum on this hugely important issue rather than just us Irish voting on behalf of the four or five hundred million others who don't get to have their say.

    The argument might have some validity if the rest of Europe all had referendums written into law as a way of ratifying treaties, and were sidestepping them this time - however, only us and the Danes normally use referendums for EU treaties. Everybody else normally uses parliamentary ratification, and are doing so this time.

    If you strongly feel that the other European countries ought to use referendums to ratify treaties, as opposed to whatever they have decided themselves, I would suggest you add your weight to the pro-referendum campaign (their "EU-wide protests" can be seen here).

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #266
    penguinbars
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8 ✭penguinbars


    Are people honestly considering voting yes to support an organisation that claims it is introducing the treaty to make itself more efficient...when an independant body in London completed a study which showed that the EU has never been more efficient....

    You talk about lies from both sides in Ireland-which i cannot deny-....but how about lies coming from the people we're about to give an enormous amount of power to,if it's passed??


  • Options
    #267
    thebaldsoprano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭thebaldsoprano


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You were asked to provide text actually and you didn't why was that?

    "Brilliant. Now go and find the corresponding section in the Constitution, prior to the proposed amendment, and tell me how it differs in substance."

    'Now go', this is in the imperative, which suggests a command or order, not a question, to say nothing over the overall tone...

    Anyways, things are really deteriorating if this kind of subtle tense manipulation is going on, I'll take your advice re scofflaw's posts and say bye bye for now.


  • Options
    #268
    Hermy
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 11,315 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hermy


    I understand that not all countries traditionally have referenda but perhaps in keeping with the supposed democratic ideals of the E.U. an exception should have been made in this case. There is a lot of debate on the whole issue of voting rights and here we [the Irish] are, deciding on the Treaty for the rest of Europe.

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • Options
    #269
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    penguinbars wrote: »
    Are people honestly considering voting yes to support an organisation that claims it is introducing the treaty to make itself more efficient...when an independant body in London completed a study which showed that the EU has never been more efficient....

    You talk about lies from both sides in Ireland-which i cannot deny-....but how about lies coming from the people we're about to give an enormous amount of power to,if it's passed??

    They are not going to get an "enormous amount of power". In fact National Parliaments are going to be more involved than ever in policy decisions and the Citizens Initiative is giving the people of the EU the power to raise issues that they feel are important. The guts of the changes are in how the EU operates, not the areas in which it does. And just because something is more efficient than ever doesn't for a single second mean it can't be better. Thats like saying to a 10 year old child that they are as tall as they ever have been so they can't get any taller.


  • Options
    #270
    Khannie
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 37,485 Mod ✭✭✭✭Khannie


    Hermy wrote: »
    I have absolutely no idea why the French, or indeed anyone else, votes one way or the other but I would like to see people being given the opportunity to vote.

    At what point does this opportunity to vote become over the top? We elect public representatives to make decisions on our behalf all the time because (frankly) it would be too much of a pain in the hole to make all those decisions ourselves.

    I'm not saying people shouldn't have the right to vote on Lisbon, only that it's not necessarily a bad thing that they didn't. As others have pointed out, the only political parties urging a no vote are the usual group of shinners, fringe groups and loopers (who never seem to urge a vote on anything that agrees with the major parties).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    Irish and Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    molloyjh wrote: »
    What exact elements do you think we could get improved for Ireland? We already have opt outs on the most important policy areas going from unanimity to QMV and we still have the veto on the remaining major issues. Every other country is in the same boat re Commissioners (which shouldn't matter as they shouldn't be operating as a representative of their member state). What are we losing out on that we could avoid losing out on? So many people have said its a bad deal, well time to put your money where your mouth is and tell us exactly what could be changed to rectify that.....

    More accountability mate!

    For example, the European Council meets behind closed doors - do you honestly trust the PMs in there without the public being allowed see how decisions are reached?

    Do you honestly trust the EU when the MEPs' expenses haven't been logged for the last 12 years?

    What's this I hear about our government requesting that the French withhold a white paper relating to military matters until after the Referendum?

    IMO, these are just a couple of items which give the impression that there is significant secrecy in EU circles!

    Regards!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement