Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

RandomName2 · 02-09-2009 5:37pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

im holding page 2 of the Sunday times (30 August 2009)

what am i looking for?

A headline entitles something like 'Pro Lisbon campagin set to outspend No side five fold'

ei.sdraob wrote: »

define respect and define democracy

Respect - legally binding.
Democracy - Majority electorate rules.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

havent we been give guarantees and get to keep "our" commisioner

True.. although it hasn't got anything to do with Lisbon (Nice), nor is it legally binding yet.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

guarantees by whom? there wont be a 3rd Lisbon it be pointless

Well if you count in referenda on the EU Constitution we are already onto the 3rd run of pretty much the same documentation. Lisbon III has the problem of UK rejection though :P. Wonder when Crotty will be repealed... :rolleyes:

ei.sdraob wrote: »

[citation needed]

Look at any FF poster put up today

marco_polo · 02-09-2009 5:39pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

A headline entitles something like 'Pro Lisbon campagin set to outspend No side five fold'

Respect - legally binding.
Democracy - Majority electorate rules.

True.. although it hasn't got anything to do with Lisbon (Nice), nor is it legally binding yet.

Well if you count in referenda on the EU Constitution we are already onto the 3rd run of pretty much the same documentation. Lisbon III has the problem of UK rejection though :P. Wonder when Crotty will be repealed... :rolleyes:

Look at any FF poster put up today

Looks like we have another baseless allegation of misuse of Public funds.

oscarBravo · 02-09-2009 5:56pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

A headline entitles something like 'Pro Lisbon campagin set to outspend No side five fold'

You've claimed that the government will be using taxpayers' money to fund a "yes" campaign. To do so would be illegal. Provide evidence that they have done so or plan to do so, or withdraw the allegation.

Spiritoftheseventies · 02-09-2009 6:07pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

You've claimed that the government will be using taxpayers' money to fund a "yes" campaign. To do so would be illegal. Provide evidence that they have done so or plan to do so, or withdraw the allegation.

End of the day, this a a three pronged campaign from FF, FG and Labour (see link below). No need to misuse public funds. Assume they will get their act together this time. Coir posters are just so bad, they run the risk of undermining the entire No campaign, some of whom make valid points despite arguments to the contrary by some.
End of the day, can see this vote being carried but for anyone from Yes Campaign to reject outright what NO people are saying is not democracy for me. We might as well forget about having a transparent campaign if that is the case.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/taoiseach-meets-yes-leaders-in-bid-to-stop-infighting-1875172.html

oscarBravo · 02-09-2009 6:12pm

bayviewclose wrote: »

No need to misuse public funds. Assume they will get their act together this time.

No need for defamatory accusations of such misuse either, which is why I'd like a clarification or withdrawal from the poster who made them.

Spiritoftheseventies · 02-09-2009 6:16pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

No need for defamatory accusations of such misuse either, which is why I'd like a clarification or withdrawal from the poster who made them.

Yes put simply, FF, FG, and Labour, assuming they can agree on a consensus should be able to get this vote through. Hence FF have no need to be dipping into public funds.
Re funding this was from Irish times article dated 28th feb 2009
" Under the plan outlined by Taoiseach Brian Cowen to the Fianna Fáil Ardfheis last night, all organisations involved in referendums will be required to reveal full details about their funding immediately after a campaign is concluded".
Assume that still applies.

Mycroft H · 02-09-2009 6:23pm

there was a great quote in the sunday indo -

"We have to rebut some of the pure and utter nonsense that will be coming from the NO side, from the ecnonomically illiterate, dimwits and headbangers. They include Sinn Fein, The Socialist Party, The Socialist Workers Party and other unemployed dolescroungers" - Micheal O'Leary

and do you know what? I have to agree with him somewhat

tonycascarino · 02-09-2009 6:31pm

landyman wrote: »

there was a great quote in the sunday indo -

"We have to rebut some of the pure and utter nonsense that will be coming from the NO side, from the ecnonomically illiterate, dimwits and headbangers. They include Sinn Fein, The Socialist Party, The Socialist Workers Party and other unemployed dolescroungers" - Micheal O'Leary

and do you know what? I have to agree with him somewhat

To be honest I thought this quote was even better :

‘‘It seems that only in the European Union, Ireland and Zimbabwe you are forced to vote twice,”..... ‘‘The vote should be respected. It is the only democratic thing to do.” -
Michael O'Leary (Yep, the very same one).

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2008/10/19/story36862.asp

and do you know what? I have to agree with him somewhat

Spiritoftheseventies · 02-09-2009 6:32pm

landyman wrote: »

there was a great quote in the sunday indo -

"We have to rebut some of the pure and utter nonsense that will be coming from the NO side, from the ecnonomically illiterate, dimwits and headbangers. They include Sinn Fein, The Socialist Party, The Socialist Workers Party and other unemployed dolescroungers" - Micheal O'Leary

and do you know what? I have to agree with him somewhat

Delighted you brought that up. This is part of what Gene Kerrigan wrote in response in his Sunday Independent "Soapbox" column last Sunday.

The perpetually uncivil Michael O'Leary is one of the civic leaders calling for a 'Yes' vote. Last week, he decried the "headbangers" who oppose the treaty, and promised to spend half a million euro of Ryanair money on a 'Yes' campaign. Why? Well, perhaps because Michael is a man who has clashed with EU bureaucrats (something similar could be said of Intel, also spending hundreds of thousands on a 'Yes' campaign). If, for instance, the issue of a Ryanair takeover of Aer Lingus was to -- ah, but Mick would never be so calculating.

Oddly enough, last October O'Leary told the Sunday Business Post that there should be no re-run of the referendum.
''It seems that only in the European Union, Ireland and Zimbabwe are you forced to vote twice," O'Leary said. ''The vote should be respected. It is the only democratic thing to do," he said. So, O'Leary is now spending half a million to overturn a vote he said should be respected -- knowing that the re-run is an undemocratic contrivance.

Why? Well, I believe what he told Matt Cooper last week: "Everything we do is in the interests of Ryanair." Much of the media is onside. And the Broadcasting Commission has decided that both sides of the issue don't have to be given equal time. This was never before applied to a campaign -- and the Commission says it will not be a precedent for future votes. It's just for Lisbon 2. Imagine that.

While an objective analysis would say there was at least exaggeration on both sides last time, the 'Yes' campaign states it as a fact that it stands for truth and the 'No' campaign stands for lies. The Generation Yes website has a section entitled "Fight The Lies". Brigid Laffan, chair of Ireland for Europe, wants a "yellow and red card system" to stop lies.

It's scatty (who would be the ref, what would be the sanction?) but it boosts the fiction of truth tellers versus liars, Serious People versus headbangers. Good marketing doesn't argue why you should buy a product -- it creates the impression that cool people favour the product, while only the uncool reject it. How does Ms Laffan's outfit report the Michael O'Leary half million euro campaign? It takes its wording from an Irish Times report. "Meanwhile", the original newspaper report said, legitimately adding on three paragraphs reporting that some trade union leaders see Lisbon as "a major advance for workers".

On its website, Ireland for Europe replaced the "Meanwhile" with "In response", and changed the report to make it appear the trade union leaders were saying that O'Leary's "announcement represented a major advance for workers". All in this together, you see, union and fanatically anti-union, except for the "headbangers". (I'm not sure if this qualifies for a yellow card or a red.)

There's lots of low-quality bull**** on offer. Former Fianna Fail minister Frank Fahey was wheeled out on Friday to defend Nama. He claimed to be frightened that the Irish banks will "fall into foreign ownership" without Nama. "And", said an outraged Frank, "look at what the foreign banks have done to this country!" I'm still trying to figure that one out. The economic collapse was caused by foreign banks, apparently. By contrast, last week, Michael O'Leary cleverly refused to tell Matt Cooper how he voted in the first Lisbon referendum. "Next question,'' he said, as though reluctant to admit something.

"Are you going to be one of those people who switched sides to the 'Yes' side?" Cooper asked. Despite Cooper's pressure, O'Leary repeatedly insisted on his right to keep his 2008 vote private, creating an impression that he had studied the issue and changed his mind from 'No' to 'Yes'.
In fact, O'Leary voted 'Yes' last time -- at least, that's what he told the Business Post last October, when he had no qualms at all about revealing how he voted. Now, that's quality bull****.''

ranmac · 02-09-2009 7:01pm

I totally agree with FutureTaoiseach if only for the proposed insertikon of the following Clause

"ARTICLE 5b
In defining and implementing its policies and activities, the Union shall aim to combat
discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation."

To me this clause s totally abhorrent and anti-christian

Spiritoftheseventies · 02-09-2009 7:08pm

ranmac wrote: »

I totally agree with FutureTaoiseach if only for the proposed insertikon of the following Clause

"ARTICLE 5b
In defining and implementing its policies and activities, the Union shall aim to combat
discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation."

To me this clause s totally abhorrent and anti-christian

sorry can you post his original post please.

ei.sdraob · 02-09-2009 7:11pm

ranmac wrote: »

To me this clause s totally abhorrent and anti-christian

you wouldn't be saying that if you were refused a job on grounds of your Christian beliefs

or discriminated against

netron · 02-09-2009 7:30pm

tonycascarino wrote: »

To be honest I thought this quote was even better :

‘‘It seems that only in the European Union, Ireland and Zimbabwe you are forced to vote twice,”..... ‘‘The vote should be respected. It is the only democratic thing to do.” -
Michael O'Leary (Yep, the very same one).

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2008/10/19/story36862.asp

and do you know what? I have to agree with him somewhat

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2005/10/we-should-shoot-eu-regulators.html

"We should shoot EU regulators and the airlines might be able to prosper,"

says the very same Michael O'Leary

and do you know what? I have to agree with him somewhat.

K-9 · 02-09-2009 7:43pm

netron wrote: »

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2005/10/we-should-shoot-eu-regulators.html

"We should shoot EU regulators and the airlines might be able to prosper,"

says the very same Michael O'Leary

and do you know what? I have to agree with him somewhat.

O'Leary has a love hate relationship with the EU, but overall he sees Lisbon as a good thing.

ranmac · 02-09-2009 8:16pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you wouldn't be saying that if you were refused a job on grounds of your Christian beliefs

or discriminated against

It's te "sexual orientation" inclusion that I am making reference to. Have a look at The Irish Society for Christian Civilisation wbsite which states, inter alia,

Our Lord Jesus Christ commanded: “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His justice, and everything else shall be added on to you.” In contrast to the Divine commandment, if the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified by Irish Catholics:

The E.U. will ignore God and the Christian roots of Europe and will create a new European identity based on radical secularism and atheistic philosophies. We do not want our children to grow up in an Ireland without God!
The E.U. will impose a relativistic and evolving idea of human rights, contrary to Catholic moral teaching. We do not want the relativisation of the principles that we will pass on to our children and grandchildren!
The E.U. will considerably restrict the protection of human life and will facilitate abortion, euthanasia, and embryo experimentation. We do not want the mass murder of innocents being promoted throughout Europe!
The E.U. will destroy the family by dissociating it from marriage between one man and one woman. Our children have the right to live in a normal home, in accordance with Catholic principles!
The E.U. will impose excessive limits on the right of the parents to educate their children in accordance with their convictions. The freedom to pass on the Faith is a legacy that can never be challenged in Catholic Ireland!
The E.U. will recognise, for the first time in the history of international treaties, “sexual orientation” as a basis for non-discrimination, opening the way for homosexual marriage and adoption of children by homosexuals. If today promiscuity and immorality already invade our homes and ruin the education of our children, what will it be like when these kinds of practices are imposed on us?

netron · 02-09-2009 8:19pm

K-9 wrote: »

O'Leary has a love hate relationship with the EU, but overall he sees Lisbon as a good thing.

respectfully i disagree.

getting to a position of power and sheer bloody mindedness like O'Leary has does NOT suggest a "love/hate" relationship.

the only conclusion i can draw from his endorsement of the Yes campaign is that he has been bought out. plain as that.

O'Leary is certainly not the kind of person to have a "love/hate" undecided opinion - and the ONLY thing that matters to him is the future profitability of Ryanair.

That is the ONLY thing he is considering.

ei.sdraob · 02-09-2009 8:21pm

ranmac wrote: »

It's te "sexual orientation" inclusion that I am making reference to. Have a look at The Irish Society for Christian Civilisation wbsite which states, inter alia,

1. so its ok to discriminate on grounds of sex but not religion?

2. who is we?

3. this is the same church that went raping kids? no wonder they dont want a human rights charter

sigh

tonycascarino · 02-09-2009 8:22pm

netron wrote: »

respectfully i disagree.

getting to a position of power and sheer bloody mindedness like O'Leary has does NOT suggest a "love/hate" relationship.

the only conclusion i can draw from his endorsement of the Yes campaign is that he has been bought out. plain as that.

O'Leary is certainly not the kind of person to have a "love/hate" undecided opinion - and the ONLY thing that matters to him is the future profitability of Ryanair.

That is the ONLY thing he is considering.

I'm inclined to agree with you. ..

netron · 02-09-2009 8:23pm

ranmac wrote: »

ranmac - whilst i utterly respect your opinions and your religious belief, bringing religion into the No campaign only serves to undermine it and only increases the media tarring of the no campaign as being run by "religious nutters".

in the wake of the Ryan Report, the LAST thing the no campaign requires is a religious angle.

but please do bear me out - i do respect your worries, and many of your points are valid. lets focus on the power grab and democratic deficit please.

ei.sdraob · 02-09-2009 8:27pm

netron wrote: »

the LAST thing the no campaign requires is a religious angle.

THE POPE AND THE LISBON TREATY

Source: Irish Family Press
Date: 25/01/2008

Mis-use of the words of the Holy Father on the Lisbon Treaty
Campaigners for Irish sovereignty have deplored attempts by supporters of the Lisbon Treaty to ‘wilfully mis-use the words of the Holy Father’ in order to whip up support for the Treaty. They said that ‘false reports which claimed that the Pope supported the Lisbon Treaty were grossly misleading misrepresentations’ of what the Pontiff had said.

‘The same media which has relentlessly attacked the Pope and the Church in the past is now trying to pretend that the Holy Father supports the Lisbon Treaty’, said Tomás Ó Caomhánaigh of Cóir. ‘It is really disgusting to see that they would stoop so low as to incorrectly quote the Pope.’ He said that a Catholic newspaper which had also misquoted the Pontiff was obliged to correct the error immediately.

‘It’s hardly likely that the Pope would throw his support behind the European project as it stands when he earlier expressed disappointment that the proposed European constitution did not include any reference to God or Europe’s Christian heritage’, continued Mr Ó Caomhánaigh. Both Pope Benedict and the late Pope John Paul II had urged that any constitution for the EU should acknowledge God, but their request was refused.

It was reported that the Pope said that the signing of the Treaty of Lisbon ‘gives a boost to the process of building the European home’, and that this implied his support for the Lisbon Treaty. In fact the quote has been reported quite out of context, and deliberately incomplete, in most newspapers.

‘What Benedict XVI actually said was that a united Europe would be a good place in which to live only if it were built on the foundation of our Christian roots,’ said Mr Ó Caomhánaigh. ‘At the moment I don’t think anyone can honestly say that the European project as proposed in the Lisbon Treaty gives any acknowledgment to Europe’s Christian heritage’, he added.

The Pope’s words on the matter were: ‘On the subject of Europe, I would like to assure you that I am following attentively the new phase which began with the signing of the Treaty of Lisbon. This step gives a boost to the process of building the “European home”, which will be a good place to live for everyone only if it is built on a solid cultural and moral foundation of common values drawn from our history and our traditions and if it does not deny its Christian roots.’

:rolleyes:

netron · 02-09-2009 8:27pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

3. this is the same church that went raping kids? no wonder they dont want a human rights charter

sigh

ranmac - see my point? you just walked into it.

netron · 02-09-2009 8:29pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

:rolleyes:

good post.

but i am against lisbon from a libertarian and nationalist angle. i have other reasons to oppose it.

ei.sdraob · 02-09-2009 8:30pm

speaking of the church

http://www.irishcatholic.ie/d5/content/eu-president-praises-bishops-euro-stand

The President of the European Parliament has praised the bishops' openness to the European Union.

Hans-Gert PÎttering was speaking to The Irish Catholic after a meeting with the hierarchy at Maynooth. The President was addressing the meeting as speculation grows that the Government is to press ahead with a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

His comments come as Bishop Noel Treanor criticised a campaign of misinformation surrounding the Lisbon Treaty debate. Bishop Treanor also expressed his disappointment at the defeat of the Treaty. ''It is to be regretted,'' he said.

He went on to criticise the ''lack of information and indeed misinformation'' that surrounded the Lisbon Treaty debate.

Mr PÎttering said: ''We had a very good exchange of views. I explained my position on Europe, and it was very well received by the bishops. I would say we had a very good discussion and I found the Bishops' Conference to be very open about the European Union.

''There was very broad consensus between myself and the Bishops' Conference about our European values. We are all concerned about the same issues, namely, the dignity of the human person, human rights, peace, solidarity and the principle of subsidiarity.

''I found the bishops to be extremely open and they want the European Union to work well, to make it stronger and to build a European Union that is based on our shared ideals,'' Mr PÎttering added.

In the aftermath of the June 12 referendum, Cardinal Seán Brady expressed the bishops' support for the EU, however, he warned that some Christian voters may have failed to support the Treaty because they are concerned about some trends in the EU.

Responding to the Cardinal's concerns, Mr PÎttering said: ''We do not live in a paradise, and of course there are concerns that we can address together, particularly around sensitive ethical issues''.

However, he said that it was ''dishonest'' of people to link ''sensitive social issues such as abortion to the [Lisbon] Treaty.

''The Lisbon Treaty had nothing to do with abortion, anyone who is saying otherwise is wrong,'' Mr PÎttering told The Irish Catholic.

sink · 02-09-2009 8:38pm

netron wrote: »

good post.

but i am against lisbon from a libertarian and nationalist angle. i have other reasons to oppose it.

A Catholic libertarian? that's odd. I would've have thought the imposition of Catholic moral teachings upon society to be incompatible with the libertarian philosophy of freedom to chooses ones own moral standards to the degree where it does not adversely affect other people.

netron · 02-09-2009 9:08pm

sink wrote: »

A Catholic libertarian? that's odd. I would've have thought the imposition of Catholic moral teachings upon society to be incompatible with the libertarian philosophy of freedom to chooses ones own moral standards to the degree where it does not adversely affect other people.

apologies - i should have made it more clear. i'm actually an atheist libertarian.

but i am not part of the aggressive secularist camp - such as Dawkins - i more believe that religion is actually required in society and that its up to folks themselves to come to the conclusion of atheism.

militant Dawkins type i am not. i do respect the contribution of religion to society, irrespective of the Ryan report.

Spiderspeed · 02-09-2009 9:20pm

I will be voting No for many reasons.....

Ireland curretly has huge influence in EU, over and above its size due to it ability to say no. In big unions and federations there is significant likelyhood that smaller nations will be swallowed up. We are members of EU as it currently stands that will not change eithe way (we are already inside the tent) but voting yes to Lisbon would in effect sideline Ireland. Our ability to say No actually increases power. By voting yes we do the exact opposite. Why give any the trenghts we currently have?

Scofflaw · 02-09-2009 9:29pm

Spiderspeed wrote: »

I will be voting No for many reasons.....

Ireland curretly has huge influence in EU, over and above its size due to it ability to say no. In big unions and federations there is significant likelyhood that smaller nations will be swallowed up. We are members of EU as it currently stands that will not change eithe way (we are already inside the tent) but voting yes to Lisbon would in effect sideline Ireland. Our ability to say No actually increases power. By voting yes we do the exact opposite. Why give any the trenghts we currently have?

Because we don't have any great voting strength, and where we have a veto, so does everyone else. Our strength has traditionally been a combination of goodwill and negotiating skills. Voting No gives away exactly that strength - the reality of our goodwill for the illusion of voting power in the Council.

You don't have to believe me on that - you're welcome to phone the DFA, who do our negotiating, and ask them which is important.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob · 02-09-2009 9:30pm

Spiderspeed wrote: »

I will be voting No for many reasons.....

Ireland curretly has huge influence in EU, over and above its size due to it ability to say no. In big unions and federations there is significant likelyhood that smaller nations will be swallowed up. We are members of EU as it currently stands that will not change eithe way (we are already inside the tent) but voting yes to Lisbon would in effect sideline Ireland. Our ability to say No actually increases power. By voting yes we do the exact opposite. Why give any the trenghts we currently have?

what power exactly it increases and how?

K-9 · 02-09-2009 9:43pm

netron wrote: »

respectfully i disagree.

getting to a position of power and sheer bloody mindedness like O'Leary has does NOT suggest a "love/hate" relationship.

the only conclusion i can draw from his endorsement of the Yes campaign is that he has been bought out. plain as that.

O'Leary is certainly not the kind of person to have a "love/hate" undecided opinion - and the ONLY thing that matters to him is the future profitability of Ryanair.

That is the ONLY thing he is considering.

I'm inclined to disagree with you! :cool:

YEP, he's only interested in profit which is why he has a love/hate relationship with it!

He loves that Govts. are restricted in giving funding to National airlines but hates that the EU has interfered on airports giving Ryanair incentives. In many ways Ryanair owes the EU a lot but that same regulations often holds it back.

Far Corfe · 02-09-2009 9:54pm

landyman wrote: »

there was a great quote in the sunday indo -

"We have to rebut some of the pure and utter nonsense that will be coming from the NO side, from the ecnonomically illiterate, dimwits and headbangers. They include Sinn Fein, The Socialist Party, The Socialist Workers Party and other unemployed dolescroungers" - Micheal O'Leary

and do you know what? I have to agree with him somewhat

Ah but did you also somewhat agree with O'Leary when he described the EU as “the evil empire”? Why now his change of tune? A little matter of needing EU approval to take over much of Aer Lingus. Likewise Intel currying favor with the commission to help their appeal case over the 1 billion fine imposed on them by Brussels.

Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

Comments