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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Reasons to Vote No to Lisbon.

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Vinegar Hill wrote: »
    Does that make the points that he has made any less credible? Or do the quotes given by European leaders on the site have any less relevance?

    In his case yes, IIRC he is banned from taking any more "nuisance" constitutional challenges by our own Supreme Court. He is anti everything whether it is good or bad about the EU. IMO he used up his credibility a long long time ago. If selective quotes without any context help you in your decision then who am I to argue. Unfortunately these days we can get hung up on soundbytes, especially ones that feed our own prejudices.


  • Options
    #33
    Irish and Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    Chunky Monkey wrote: »
    Probably the best example was their [Libertas] poster attacking Fine Gael's Lucinda Creighton for her support of an EU army [27]. This poster attempted to play on Irish fears about EU militarisation and the desire to retain Irish military neutrality. The idea that either Ganley or McEvaddy are anti-militarists is simply laughable, given the fact that their companies exist as devoted suppliers of the US military and intelligence services.

    From: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87311

    Now, I wonder what the real reason is for their discontent with the treaty...

    OK, we can argue tit for tat, but the bottom line is that people died for this country's independence in 1916. Are we going to surrender this in 2008?

    Regards!


  • Options
    #34
    Ekancone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Ekancone


    Irish and Proud wrote: »
    OK, we can argue tit for tat, but the bottom line is that people died for this country's independence in 1916. Are we going to surrender this in 2008?

    Regards!

    Ohhh, leading questions, the last bastion of poor arguments. When are the false dichotomies coming? I like those.


  • Options
    #35
    DVDMAN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭DVDMAN


    Nothing wrong with Nuclear Power in my view. Ireland should have 1 or 2 plants, our emissions would be greatly reduced. We have a processing plant next door at Sellafield. seems viable


  • Options
    #36
    DVDMAN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭DVDMAN


    Get out of the past, and move on. That type of thinking is very English, reminiscing of past circumstances. your in or out its that simple


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,740 ✭✭✭SeanW


    ...so basically, it's a total gimmick! mad.gif

    Whether one agrees or disagrees with nuclear power, it should be a matter for each country - if the above is true, then it's another example of draconian EU intervention if Lisbon is passed!
    You could argue that point either way.

    My point is that the argument is self-contradicting. If you want the Lisbon treaty to help deal with Climate Change, then it must make some provisions to do so. One of those provisions could (I would say must) would be to promote a nuclear industry, which would not only help mitigate global warming, but mitigate other environmental problems and enhance our energy security and reliability.

    If you don't want Lisbon to deal with global warming, then it should not tell us how to generate our electricity so we can keep on tearing up boglands to get some of our supply while for the rest burning gas and hoping the Ruskies don't turn off the tap. Or go down the road Germany is taking and go on a coal-fired plant building spree of a kind not seen since the Industrial Revolution (with the full support of the German Greens I might add).

    Which would the No posters here prefer?


  • Options
    #38
    R0C0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 112 ✭✭R0C0


    I'd agree that neither of us know for sure exactly why people voted No
    Okay, so we agree it is 95% the same. We agree neither of us know why it was rejected. We just disagree on where it shoud go from there. There's substantial reason to believe they would be opposed to Lisbon, given how similar it is to what they have already rejected.

    Most importantly though, we agree on the facts in my piece. It is 95% the same text. I'm not suggesting its the exact same, I don't know how to make it clearer that it is 95%, but it is very very similar, even you must acknowledge that. Therefore, whether you agree with it or not, an awful lot of people will see that similarity to a rejected text as a reason to Vote No, I do, millions of others do. So its a valid point.
    and what is happening? Nothing at all. A couple of students outside the Irish embassy.
    You seem like an intelligent guy, you don't honestly believe thats all the protest taking place outside of Ireland, do you?

    There is wide scale protest going on all over Europe. Remember all those MP's in Britain who walked out of Parliament. Here is the result of a quick two minute search I did online...

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7265502.stm
    http://www.erc2.org/157.0.html
    http://thomasholmgren.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/a-plea-to-the-irish/
    http://ireland.indymedia.org/article/87019

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4e4t3vqP4c&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNpTBm7Xrt4
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kr0Foq3CQE&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCBIst10H-k
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcLKU4tdi08&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QiQRRZE2c0&feature=related

    There's a lot more than that too, but I'm afraid if you're relying on RTÉ or most mainstream media, you're not going to hear a lot about this kind of thing.

    Besides, a supposed lack of protest isn't good enough reason for it not to be put to vote, for a number of reasons.
    1. How good is the media coverage of Lisbon in the rest of Europe?
    2. Irish media more than likely will not cover any protests going on in Europe.
    3. Important texts like this should be ratified on a basis of support, not a lack of protest. Thats how democracy works.


  • Options
    #39
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    R0C0 wrote: »
    Okay, so we agree it is 95% the same. We agree neither of us know why it was rejected. We just disagree on where it should go from there. There's substantial reason to believe they would be opposed to Lisbon, given how similar it is to what they have already rejected.
    The turnout stats page I linked to on one of the other threads may explain it.


  • Options
    #40
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    R0C0 wrote: »
    Okay, so we agree it is 95% the same. We agree neither of us know why it was rejected. We just disagree on where it shoud go from there. There's substantial reason to believe they would be opposed to Lisbon, given how similar it is to what they have already rejected.

    Most importantly though, we agree on the facts in my piece. It is 95% the same text. I'm not suggesting its the exact same, I don't know how to make it clearer that it is 95%, but it is very very similar, even you must acknowledge that. Therefore, whether you agree with it or not, an awful lot of people will see that similarity to a rejected text as a reason to Vote No, I do, millions of others do. So its a valid point.

    Not really - it depends on what 5% it was.
    R0C0 wrote:
    You seem like an intelligent guy, you don't honestly believe thats all the protest taking place outside of Ireland, do you?

    There is wide scale protest going on all over Europe. Remember all those MP's in Britain who walked out of Parliament. Here is the result of a quick two minute search I did online...

    Let's take a look at those links, and what they say:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7265502.stm

    "Campaigners claim "two to three thousand" gathered outside Parliament earlier in an effort to persuade MPs to back a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty."

    The campaigners are only claiming 2-3,000? In the UK, that's not a protest, it's a biggish queue.

    http://www.erc2.org/157.0.html

    "As they signed in agreement several hundreds of people gathered outside the Palace of Versailles to demonstrate against the undemocratic process of ratification. Various organisations from mainly from the French political left expressed their discontent with the French government."

    And that's a small queue.

    http://thomasholmgren.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/a-plea-to-the-irish/

    That's a blog - no mention of protests.

    http://ireland.indymedia.org/article/87019

    "Dutch MP to speak on Lisbon Treaty at pubic (sic) meetings across Ireland"

    Did you check these links?
    R0CO wrote:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4e4t3vqP4c&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNpTBm7Xrt4
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kr0Foq3CQE&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCBIst10H-k
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcLKU4tdi08&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QiQRRZE2c0&feature=related

    There's a lot more than that too, but I'm afraid if you're relying on RTÉ or most mainstream media, you're not going to hear a lot about this kind of thing.

    Funnily enough, I rely almost entirely on the Internet for news.
    R0C0 wrote:
    Besides, a supposed lack of protest isn't good enough reason for it not to be put to vote, for a number of reasons.
    1. How good is the media coverage of Lisbon in the rest of Europe?
    2. Irish media more than likely will not cover any protests going on in Europe.
    3. Important texts like this should be ratified on a basis of support, not a lack of protest. Thats how democracy works.

    Now we're down to special pleading. The anti-Lisbon websites would certainly record any real protests. A couple of thousand in the UK, and a few hundred in France, aren't "widespread protests" except in the sense of having a bit of geography between them.

    I agree with you that treaties should be ratified on the basis of support, but Lisbon is being ratified in the normal way in EU states, and people are evidently happy with it. Don't kid yourself you're somehow voting on behalf of a huge oppressed electorate, because you aren't. You're voting no for your own reasons.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #41
    R0C0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 112 ✭✭R0C0


    Not really - it depends on what 5% it was.

    That doesn't make any sense. What are you trying to say here? That people aren't entitled to Vote No on the basis of its similarities to the rejected constitution?

    I don't understand what you can possibly disagree with here, if we agree on the fact of how similar it is, then you're just saying people aren't allowed use that to form an opinion??
    Did you check these links?
    Yes, they all show people in Europe who's voice isn't being heard, the basis of democracy? They don't get to vote. They should. Or why do you propose they shouldn't???

    The citizens of 26 member states, will have no say, on a document that is going to change the structure and nature of the EU, which they are part of. Its insane when you think about it.
    and people are evidently happy with it
    And if you honestly believe that, god help you. Are you happy with everything you don't stage a mass protest against?? Just because millions of people aren't walking out of their jobs to go protest on the streets doesn't mean they are happy with it. AGAIN.. thats not how a democracy works. It should ONLY be ratified on the basis of support, a democratic vote, FROM THE PEOPLE IT AFFECTS!!
    Don't kid yourself you're somehow voting on behalf of a huge oppressed electorate,
    We are voting on behalf of a huge electorate that gets no vote, are we not??

    Do you honestly believe that this is the best way, to cut out the opinions of so many people?? Do you think that's democratic??


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    R0C0 wrote: »
    That doesn't make any sense. What are you trying to say here? That people aren't entitled to Vote No on the basis of its similarities to the rejected constitution?

    I don't understand what you can possibly disagree with here, if we agree on the fact of how similar it is, then you're just saying people aren't allowed use that to form an opinion??

    They are allowed to form an opinion on anything they like, it might not be a very well informed opinion.

    Take the scenario for example. A man approaches your friend with a propostion, He offers to give both of you 100 million euro, a mansion with a garage full of expensive cars & bikes, a private plane, immunity from prosecution from anything and to chop off your arms and legs. They reject this proposal.

    Now say a proposal that is 80% the same is offered to you. The part about chopping off your arms and legs are taken out, are you going to reject that proposal based on the fact that your friend rejected a proposal that was similar? It's a bit extreme I know but i'm using it to emphasise my point.

    R0C0 wrote: »
    Yes, they all show people in Europe who's voice isn't being heard, the basis of democracy? They don't get to vote. They should. Or why do you propose they shouldn't???

    The citizens of 26 member states, will have no say, on a document that is going to change the structure and nature of the EU, which they are part of. Its insane when you think about it.

    I don't propose they shouldn't have a vote and neither is Scofflaw. I'm simply saying that voting yes or no isn't going to have any impact on wether or not they get to vote, so using this as a sole reason for voting no is illogical.
    R0C0 wrote: »
    We are voting on behalf of a huge electorate that gets no vote, are we not??

    No we are voting on behalf of ourselves, no one else.
    R0C0 wrote: »
    Do you honestly believe that this is the best way, to cut out the opinions of so many people?? Do you think that's democratic??

    No, but I don't have any choice in the matter. You make it seem that we somehow have more power over foreign governments than their own electorates, we don't.


  • Options
    #43
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    R0C0 wrote: »
    That doesn't make any sense. What are you trying to say here? That people aren't entitled to Vote No on the basis of its similarities to the rejected constitution?

    I don't understand what you can possibly disagree with here, if we agree on the fact of how similar it is, then you're just saying people aren't allowed use that to form an opinion??

    I'm pointing out that whether the same people would object to a new contract that is 95% the same as the old contract depends on what 5% has been changed.

    Let me put it to you this way. Imagine a small contract that details the the post of a sacrificial king. Let's make it 100 words long - and the last 5 words are "...and then we sacrifice you" - the other 95 are your rights in respect of virgin females, premium food and drink, etc, for a year.

    I can offer you two contracts, 95% the same - the second one simply has the last 5 words cut out. Would you refuse the second because you'd refused the first?
    R0C0 wrote: »
    Yes, they all show people in Europe who's voice isn't being heard, the basis of democracy? They don't get to vote. They should. Or why do you propose they shouldn't???

    The citizens of 26 member states, will have no say, on a document that is going to change the structure and nature of the EU, which they are part of. Its insane when you think about it.

    Why do you hate representative democracy and the normal ratification methods of other countries?

    It's not insane. they voted for their parliaments, and their parliaments are ratifying the Treaty. That's what they've done for all the other Treaties too.

    As to the links, they show that a few thousand people across Europe is the total disenfranchised electorate you pretend to be voting on behalf of. You'd get a larger turnout at a Rick Astley concert.
    R0C0 wrote: »
    And if you honestly believe that, god help you. Are you happy with everything you don't stage a mass protest against?? Just because millions of people aren't walking out of their jobs to go protest on the streets doesn't mean they are happy with it. AGAIN.. thats not how a democracy works. It should ONLY be ratified on the basis of support, a democratic vote, FROM THE PEOPLE IT AFFECTS!!

    Which is exactly what's happening. It isn't happening in other countries the way you think it should happen - it's happening the way they think it should happen.
    R0C0 wrote: »
    We are voting on behalf of a huge electorate that gets no vote, are we not??

    No, we're voting on behalf of Ireland. We have neither the right, nor the duty, to do anything else.
    R0C0 wrote: »
    Do you honestly believe that this is the best way, to cut out the opinions of so many people?? Do you think that's democratic??

    I don't think their opinions have been cut out at all. You don't seem to care whether other countries should do things differently - you find it unacceptable. So? Who made you the judge and jury on whether their methods are right?

    You're not calling for democracy, you're calling for the imposition of our way of doing things. Should they also ratify the Treaty in Irish while they're at it?

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #44
    Jumpy
    Registered Users Posts: 7,606 ✭✭✭Jumpy


    R0C0 wrote: »
    Reasons to Vote No to Lisbon.




    4 Our Health System. You think its bad now? Lisbon will open the door to a huge influx of Privatisation within the Health
    System (Article 188 and 188b), all other Countries who've allowed their Health systems to go this route have suffered for it.
    Look at Britain, Australia, Canada, the more Health is privatised the more Insurance Premiums rise, Care Quality falls, and
    public waiting lists get longer. Lisbon will remove the power to veto proposals for international trade in health, education
    and social services that the EU makes on our behalf at the WTO. Article 188 would fast track all attempts at privatising
    our health sytem, I am referring to the "progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade and on foreign direct
    investment" As it stands, we have some say (however minute) in how our Health service is run, if Lisbon goes through we have
    no say. So as bad and all as our Health System is, through Lisbon, it has the potential to get a whole lot worse.

    .



    You are joking right? I am from Australia and I can say that the health system there is both less costly and about ten thousand times better than here.
    I really wouldnt use this as an argument for voting No. Having dealt with the health system here lately I can say I would much rather be home than in Ireland. It is a shambles.


    Also... Using Canada as a negative? FFS man they have one of the best systems in the world.


  • Options
    #45
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    daithifleming wrote: »
    Its a simple rule of thumb, for those who don't have the time to read such treaties.

    Wrong. It is a simple rule of thumb for political sheep. And sheep don't deserve the vote, because they will use it extremely irresponsibly.

    No one is going to read the whole treaty. All you do is pick up the Ref. Commissions handbook and decide then.


  • Options
    #46
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Irish and Proud wrote: »
    OK, we can argue tit for tat, but the bottom line is that people died for this country's independence in 1916. Are we going to surrender this in 2008?

    Regards!

    Its hardly surrendering independence. Yet provide me with the reasons this is so and I will accept your view. Oh wait, there are no reasons.


  • Options
    #47
    Ekancone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Ekancone


    turgon wrote: »
    Wrong. It is a simple rule of thumb for political sheep. And sheep don't deserve the vote, because they will use it extremely irresponsibly.

    Sheeple. Thats the word you guys use, right? How is the NWO shaping up anyway?


  • Options
    #48
    Mweelrea
    Registered Users Posts: 1,172 ✭✭✭Mweelrea


    Personally i would vote no except the last time we did that with the nice treaty the government only made us vote again because it wasn't the result they wanted.
    Who's to say they won't just do the same again?


  • Options
    #49
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Mweelrea wrote: »
    Personally i would vote no except the last time we did that with the nice treaty the government only made us vote again because it wasn't the result they wanted.
    Who's to say they won't just do the same again?

    There already has been extensive discussion on this topic. May I direct you to this thread.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055293974


  • Options
    #50
    Mweelrea
    Registered Users Posts: 1,172 ✭✭✭Mweelrea


    sink wrote: »
    There already has been extensive discussion on this topic. May I direct you to this thread.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055293974

    Cheers


  • Options
    #51
    cat&mouse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 65 ✭✭cat&mouse


    My dough is on the NO running at 3:1
    put a few quid on today in the bookies - A bit of cat & mouse fun!!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    gordon_gekko
    Closed Accounts Posts: 412 ✭✭gordon_gekko


    Paddy will vote NO because he can. It is not because he doesn't see the benefits of improving how a 27 member community can operate.
    Paddy doesn't care about such important detail. He has an opportunity to put a spanner in the European works, and so he will do it. Just don't ask Paddy for a rational explanation.


Advertisement