Why are you voting yes

utick

Here is where you explain yourself for voting yes to the eu constitution.
What do you think it will improve for life in ireland

coolbeans

utick wrote: »

Here is where you explain yourself for voting yes to the eu constitution.
What do you think it will improve for life in ireland

No offense but a large part of the reason I'll be voting yes is because most of those advocating a no vote seem like a bunch of morons. Listening to Pat Kenny the other day and this guy starts spouting stuff about how voting yes will result ininter alia the legalisation of cannabis and cocaine as well as prostitution. Further more he starts bringing the rights of the unborn child into the equation basically implying that we'll be forced to accept the legalisation of abortion. He kept on ranting in this way for a good ten minutes. Basically if he's on one side I want to be on the other.
Other more 'rational' reasons include the EU's committment to environmental protection; something the Irish government couldn't give a toss about. Virtually all our environmental legislation was foisted on us by the EU. God knows what the country would be like if we didn't have Brussels making the hard decisions that our populist Fianna Fail governments(without the fada) are only too happy to shy away from.

dresden8

Because Bertie told us that if we didn't vote yes the Europeans would **** us up big time in revenge for not voting the way they wanted.

The_Minister

dresden8 wrote: »

Because Bertie told us that if we didn't vote yes the Europeans would **** us up big time in revenge for not voting the way they wanted.

1. That is not what he said.

2. We won't be ****ed out of the Union. Everyone will just be pissed off at us and we will lose alot of goodwill.

Sangre

Having actually studied EU law I'd probably know more than the average joe on the EU so I thankfully don't have to take everything at face value. I haven't heard one decent argument from the No Side (that isn't misinformation or a lie) to vote no. Most of the Treaty merely streamlines a lot of the EU and is much needed, its currently overly bureaucratic.

In fairness Sangre,you either agree or disagree with concepts such as European foreign representatives/ministers/presidents and the dilution of the nation state.
If one disagree's on the grounds of nationalism,thats a good enough if quirky reason for voting no.

Of course all nationalist parties in the Republic don't see it that way obviously.
I couldn't care less about whether those concepts are advanced or not either.
For the first time in my life though and against the grain of my normal thinking,I'm leaning towards a protest vote on something unrelated to the treaty.
That may change before the referendum.

passive

Sorry; questions. When's the vote? And can one vote (yes) in absentia?

oscarBravo

June 12, and no.

dresden8

The_Minister wrote: »

2. We won't be ****ed out of the Union. Everyone will just be pissed off at us and we will lose alot of goodwill.

I never said we would be thrown out.

"Pissed off at us and we will lose a lot of goodwill" is specifically a threat in that we will pay for it in another way later. Or are you suggesting that they will just put us on the naughty step for five minutes and then we'll say sorry and have a hug?

Anyway, if we do vote no Cowen will tell the Europeans we are just stupid and he'll make us vote again. Happened before, will happen again.

dresden8

dresden8 wrote: »

Anyway, if we do vote no Cowen will tell the Europeans we are just stupid and he'll make us vote again. Happened before, will happen again.

Have you any evidence of this?
We voted quite a few times on Divorce iirc and eventually it got through.
Are you playing that old chessnut that people aren't allowed to change their minds?
Why bother have any election either so? The one in 1922 was fine,we can put the gt grandchildren of those elected in the Dáil as long as they stick rigidly to 1922 policy...After all a change of mind isn't allowed.
See'ing as this is whats being advocated,I'd better put it into practice straight away..
[Enters 1922 mentality as I was never allowed to evolve to a newer opinion than that (or was it 1801?)]

Now wheres my Wife she should have my clothes washed by now and the dinner on the table.
It's not good enough.
What are all those women doing in the Dáil-get them out of there.Thats not allowed-they should be at home washing the floors that I as a man am perfectly entitled to dirty again and order a re wash immediately.

Hop to it Mná na h'Éireann,we aren't allowed to be asked again about anything so really you have no rights other than be told by us the men of Ireland what to do.
I want 14 children too because thats what Archbishop McQuaid said must ultimately be the consequences of me and the wifes bedroom antics.

Now say your prayers-theres only one Church and ye are all going to hell if ye don't obey it.
We weren't allowed to vote a change of attitude there either.

etc etc...

dresden8

Deleted User wrote: »

Have you any evidence of this?
We voted quite a few times on Divorce iirc and eventually it got through.
Are you playing that old chessnut that people aren't allowed to change their minds?
Why bother have any election either so? The one in 1922 was fine,we can put the gt grandchildren of those elected in the Dáil as long as they stick rigidly to 1922 policy...After all a change of mind isn't allowed.
See'ing as this is whats being advocated,I'd better put it into practice straight away..
[Enters 1922 mentality as I was never allowed to evolve to a newer opinion than that (or was it 1801?)]

Now wheres my Wife she should have my clothes washed by now and the dinner on the table.
It's not good enough.
What are all those women doing in the Dáil-get them out of there.Thats not allowed-they should be at home washing the floors that I as a man am perfectly entitled to dirty again and order a re wash immediately.

Hop to it Mná na h'Éireann,we aren't allowed to be asked again about anything so really you have no rights other than be told by us the men of Ireland what to do.
I want 14 children too because thats what Archbishop McQuaid said must ultimately be the consequences of me and the wifes bedroom antics.

Now say your prayers-theres only one Church and ye are all going to hell if ye don't obey it.
We weren't allowed to vote a change of attitude there either.

etc etc...

Eh, what?

Simple.
You imply that one vote is enough.
You can never be entitled to change your mind on something.
So I suggested by that logic we should go back to the first free state vote in 1922 and readopt everything that was law and the usual then as lets face it as we were never entitled to move on or change our mind about that society that we voted on-then we must revert to it.

Your logic.

I'll bet you don't go around never changing your mind on something.

dresden8

I don't think the people changed their minds. The yes people just got off their arses and mobilised their lazy voters better.

In the interests of fairness the referendum should have been run again thereafter to see if the no people could have mobilised their base better.

As it stands the Nice vote was a score draw.

The only difference to our lords and masters was that we got it "right" the second time.

I respectively disagree.
A government was returned to office that had as one of it's manifesto promises a re run of the referendum.

No party has been elected to govenment on a mandate of a no vote to nice.

thebman

Sangre wrote: »

I haven't heard one decent argument from the No Side (that isn't misinformation or a lie) to vote no. Most of the Treaty merely streamlines a lot of the EU and is much needed, its currently overly bureaucratic.

All I've heard from the yes side is it streamlines the EU. Nobody actually says how yet.

Personally I don't have a problem with streamlining the EU but if its at the cost of something important then no I don't think its worth it. So who's say is removed or reduced in this streamlining process?

From what I've heard and read, it seems Ireland gets less of a say after it than before it which is enough reason to be against it IMO. There is a lot of everyone is expected to benefit and everyone will be compromising etc... but there is little reason give for why need to give we can just leave it the way it is.

What is so broken about the way things are at the moment that we should vote yes to this? Personally I dont' see it but I think it has the potential to get very bad if we vote yes to this. Screw being shunned by Europe for a while, they don't exactly think fondly of us at the moment IMO, at best they just don't give a sh*t about us.

dresden8

Deleted User wrote: »

A government was returned to office that had as one of it's manifesto promises a re run of the referendum.

No party has been elected to govenment on a mandate of a no vote to nice.

It's highly disingenuous to suggest that a government was re-elected by riding a wave of popular support for a re-run of the Nice referendum.

Why?
Was there any party elected riding a wave for a re run to get a no to Nice ?

Just like theres none championing a ban on divorce and a referendum on that going to get into power anytime soon.
My point being the initial no to nice vote blocked Nice.
It did what it said on the tin.
It was fairly obvious that it was a fluke and unrepresentative vote given that a higher turnout at the second one together with promises on neutrality delivered a yes vote.

That vote carries the same stronger validity compared to the previous no vote as our yes to divorce referendum did towards our no to divorce votes.

I've always found this "ah they'll run it again" attitude both laughable for it's un democratic nature and just pure undemocratic for it's ignoring of peoples right to change their mind.

thebman

Deleted User wrote: »

Why?
Was there any party elected riding a wave for a re run to get a no to Nice ?

Probably because most people vote for the politician seen to be doing the most for their local area as he is the good guy and all the others are useless.

The whole all politics are local thing.

Yeah but that would include what the local politicians views on Nice were.
Evidentially there were more people who wanted a re run of Nice than didn't which is the essence of democracy.

oscarBravo

brim4brim wrote: »

All I've heard from the yes side is it streamlines the EU. Nobody actually says how yet.

The Treaty says how, as do many of the guides floating around the Internet. This one is quite good.

From what I've heard and read, it seems Ireland gets less of a say after it than before it...

That's not the impression I've been getting.

For those of you who are convinced that Ireland is being sold down the river at every turn by this Treaty: why do you think the government signed it?

There is a lot of everyone is expected to benefit and everyone will be compromising etc... but there is little reason give for why need to give we can just leave it the way it is.

What is so broken about the way things are at the moment that we should vote yes to this? Personally I dont' see it but I think it has the potential to get very bad if we vote yes to this. Screw being shunned by Europe for a while, they don't exactly think fondly of us at the moment IMO, at best they just don't give a sh*t about us.

As I look at the pro and con arguments on this treaty, I think the best analogy I've seen comes from Scofflaw: that of being a member of a club. It doesn't matter what kind of club; the raison d'être of any club is to facilitate its members in achieving something that's of mutual benefit to them all, and that they can't as readily get individually.

Most of the "no" arguments I've seen amount to questions about what's in it for Ireland specifically. Most of the "yes" arguments tend towards the treaty being good for the EU generally, and what's good for the EU is good for its members.

How long would a club last if every time a decision had to be made, one member constantly dug his heels in and refused to endorse it until all his own personal demands were met? Scofflaw asked the question in another thread: how long before the club decides it's better off without the troublesome member? Does the EU need us more than we need it?

Predictably, the import of the question was ignored, but it's worth exploring.

Hotblack Desiato

coolbeans wrote: »

Listening to Pat Kenny the other day and this guy starts spouting stuff about how voting yes will result ininter alia the legalisation of cannabis and cocaine as well as prostitution. Further more he starts bringing the rights of the unborn child into the equation basically implying that we'll be forced to accept the legalisation of abortion. He kept on ranting in this way for a good ten minutes. Basically if he's on one side I want to be on the other.

You have to wonder at those guys stuck in some sort of 1950s timewarp. I'm sure he would be shocked to learn the number of people in this country who think that legalised drugs, prostitution and abortion would be a good thing. Of course, it hardly needs to be said that all of his arguments are complete nonsense.

Anyway. I'll be voting Yes, not for coke and hookers, but to make the EU work better and be more democratically accountable.

The power of the commission needs to be reduced and face more checks and balances from the EU Parliament. Lisbon does this. The commission needs to be reduced in number as there are simply not 27 meaningful jobs to go round. Lisbon does this also.

Vetoes on all and sundry were not such a problem with 6 members, with 27 getting anything at all done without reducing the number of areas subject to veto will be difficult. Lisbon does this, while maintaining our national vetoes on defence and taxation. The system of qualified majority voting protects the interests of small countries and arguably enhances them compared to the status quo.

Lisbon increases the powers of the EU Parliament and introduces the citizen's initiative, both increasing the democratic accountability of the EU.

It's all good as far as I can see, and there's not a single No argument I've heard that stands up. Unless you are opposed to the EU in principle, I can't see any rational reason not to vote Yes. (Even if you are opposed to the EU in principle, it's arguable that you should vote Yes as it will be beneficial to Ireland's interests to do so. Also Lisbon actually introduces a method for a country to leave the EU if it chooses... )

JohnMc1

No offense but a large part of the reason I'll be voting yes is because most of those advocating a no vote seem like a bunch of morons.

So you're going to vote Yes and possibly give up any rights/freedoms in your own country because you don't like Pat Kenny and you think the No crowd are morons? This is why Ireland is **** atm because of stupid thinking like that. Crying about Bertie and Fianna Fall for 10+ years and still voting them in.

If the Treaty is so good there wouldn't be such vagueness and huge secrecy about it.

nesf

JohnMc1 wrote: »

If the Treaty is so good there wouldn't be such vagueness and huge secrecy about it.

There isn't vagueness and secrecy about it. It's just not a document you can reduce into a one line slogan. The text of the Treaty is up online if you want to read it, there are numerous guides around. Really, the information is there if you want it.

The single biggest problem with the Treaty is that it's a treaty between multiple countries which makes it very very dry, boring and difficult for most people to read. This isn't "intentional" though, it's just how law and foreign policy works.

JohnMc1

nesf wrote: »

There isn't vagueness and secrecy about it. It's just not a document you can reduce into a one line slogan. The text of the Treaty is up online if you want to read it, there are numerous guides around. Really, the information is there if you want it.

The single biggest problem with the Treaty is that it's a treaty between multiple countries which makes it very very dry, boring and difficult for most people to read. This isn't "intentional" though, it's just how law and foreign policy works.

I read it and got the booklet this morning. If Fianna Fall and Fianna Gael want us to vote yes then they should publish their own pamphlets stating what Ireland has to gain or lose by voting Yes or No for the Treaty.

nesf

JohnMc1 wrote: »

I read it and got the booklet this morning. If Fianna Fall and Fianna Gael want us to vote yes then they should publish their own pamphlets stating what Ireland has to gain or lose by voting Yes or No for the Treaty.

They should indeed. But the information is up online for you to find out what it's about. It's not like they're keeping it a big secret or that we're not allowed but a glimpse of the Treaty or something silly like that. Part of the responsibility of a voter is to educate themselves, not just to wait around to be educated about what they're going to be voted on.

They've a five point list here: http://www.vote4europe.ie/ towards the bottom of the page.

JohnMc1

nesf wrote: »

They should indeed. But the information is up online for you to find out what it's about. It's not like they're keeping it a big secret or that we're not allowed but a glimpse of the Treaty or something silly like that. Part of the responsibility of a voter is to educate themselves, not just to wait around to be educated about what they're going to be voted on.

They've a five point list here: http://www.vote4europe.ie/ towards the bottom of the page.

Thanks for that link. It still feels like we'll be giving up more of our rights by voting yes though.

dlofnep

The_Minister wrote: »

2. We won't be ****ed out of the Union. Everyone will just be pissed off at us and we will lose alot of goodwill.

Who will be p*ssed off at us? Who cares what people think? We should vote regardless of what people think. If their Governments didn't have the guts to give them a vote, it's not our fault. They can take it up with their Government. In saying that, I am sure the vast majority of the general population in Europe is none the wiser of what the Lisbon treaty even entails.. And if they are, I'm sure there will be those who congradulate us for voting no aswell as those who begrudge us for voting no.

This is no reason to vote yes. It's not democratic.

nesf

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Thanks for that link. It still feels like we'll be giving up more of our rights by voting yes though.

Our MEPs need to vote on more things though giving us a closer democratic link to the action. Which is a plus point for me. The EU has some new shared competencies which gives it "some" new power but it's shared with national government and it's not on the really big areas like Taxation. The EU gets no new exclusive competencies etc.

What rights do you think we'll give up by voting yes?

JohnMc1

nesf wrote: »

What rights do you think we'll give up by voting yes?

Who comes into this country and how many is my biggst concern. Ireland is not a huge country and we're already starting to feel the effects of overpopulation [increased crime and murder]

nesf

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Who comes into this country and how many is my biggst concern. Ireland is not a huge country and we're already starting to feel the effects of overpopulation [increased crime and murder]

We retain control of immigration from outside the EU afaik. EU citizens will be able to enter this country regardless of whether it's a Yes or No vote. One of the other guys might be able to give you more information on this.

sink

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Who comes into this country and how many is my biggst concern. Ireland is not a huge country and we're already starting to feel the effects of overpopulation [increased crime and murder]

I would say we're feeling the effects of under development, an infrastructure deficit and poor planning. This island is one of the least densely populated regions of Europe. The is no reason it could not support 15 - 20 million or more with the proper infrastructure and services. I'm not advocating we aim for 15-20 million people, i'm just pointing out it's possible.

Keano

Why are my voting yes?

It seems that most politicans are on the Yes side - they never agree but are all on the yes side this time.

If Enda is actually siding with FF, then it has to be a yes for me!

Yes. An absolute moronic reason for voting Yes but I'll still vote.

Het-Field

1.Structural Reform
-The reduction in the Size of the Cumbersome EU Commission
-The Reduction in size in the virtually redundant European Parliment
-Consistency with the 2 1/2 year term for the Council President
-Introduction of QMV to more policy areas which reduces the chances of needless vetos

2.Greater Accountability
-Greater Ability for National Scrutinise EU Legislation. A full 8 Weeks !
-The Citizen's Initiative which gives ordinary joe soap a chance to Influence EU Policy
-The EU will now consult National Parliments on the Issue of Expansion

3.Incorporation of the Charter Of Fundament Rights.
-As a PD Im a firm believer in Human Rights, and this Doucment increases their scope.

On the more faceous side, i would not want to be associated with Sinn Fein,Youth Defence,Libertas, SWP, Workers Party, Immigration Control Platform.

All the Parties are in favour I say Yes !

nesf

Keano A Legend wrote: »

Yes. An absolute moronic reason for voting Yes but I'll still vote.

It's not a bad one really. About the only time you can trust the feckers is when they're all in agreement about something. They rarely pass up even half a chance to take digs at each other.

ambro25

I'll be voting Yes.

I'd like to say "simply because I've been voting Yes to anything "EU" since 1990 in the several EU countries I've lived in since and, for me at least/from personal experience, the EU has delivered time and again".

But I've done my homework (being a legal type helps, as Sangre and nesf are right, the Treaty is rather dry), so instead I'll say "simply because Lisbon is just another stone to the house, the first brick was laid in 1957, and there's still a f*ck of a long way to go before we can even think about the roof".

The_Minister

dlofnep wrote: »

Who will be p*ssed off at us? Who cares what people think? We should vote regardless of what people think. If their Governments didn't have the guts to give them a vote, it's not our fault. They can take it up with their Government. In saying that, I am sure the vast majority of the general population in Europe is none the wiser of what the Lisbon treaty even entails.. And if they are, I'm sure there will be those who congradulate us for voting no aswell as those who begrudge us for voting no.

This is no reason to vote yes. It's not democratic.

*Stares*

*Keeps staring*

*Decides that dlofnep is not joking*


I was referring to countries, not tourism.
For instance we would be great political allies with the French (whose government and most of the opposition support the treaty), because we work on agriculture together. This often means that France backs us up on other issues, even those that they have no interest in.
The same with Britain.

Also, the reputation and standing of a country have a huge impact on its ability to negotiate. A big economy like the US can pretty much say "take it or leave it", but a small, insignificant (we so are, even if we hate admitting it) country like Ireland requires a large amount of political currency to get things done on an international level.

If we get a reputation as a bunch of whingers who throw out every treaty because we have to compromise in it, even when EVERY other country involved is compromising too, and giving up something, then we will start to find Europe pretty damn chilly.

thebman

oscarBravo wrote: »

For those of you who are convinced that Ireland is being sold down the river at every turn by this Treaty: why do you think the government signed it? As I look at the pro and con arguments on this treaty, I think the best analogy I've seen comes from Scofflaw: that of being a member of a club. It doesn't matter what kind of club; the raison d'être of any club is to facilitate its members in achieving something that's of mutual benefit to them all, and that they can't as readily get individually.

Well they'll lie about anything else and if you need evidence just read their election promises.

I think our politicians generally just take the path of least resistence especially when it comes to Europe and don't seem to think about anything other than it'll make us look bad to Europe rather than thinking is this good for Ireland.

I don't honestly believe they care about the future of the country and that they'll get people to vote yes because it means less hassle for them for a few years and then they don't care once they aren't in power and the country is stuck doing something stupid because Europe says so despite it not benefiting us at all.

My biggest fear would be that this treaty will pave the way for ridiculous anti-terrorist laws and the like. I would be extremely against anything like that on the grounds that you can't prevent terrorism, tough sh*t and taking away citizens rights and privacy just turns a country into a police state. I have heard mention of stuff like that in the media and although I take it with a grain of salt, I want to see for certain that this would not occur.

So far the only thing that has me in anyway in favour of this treaty is that it might lead to us having to allow abortion because I don't think agree with our abortion laws.

BTW thanks for the links and its not that I don't want to read them, I just haven't had time so if I seem as ignorant as before on the treaty, its not because I want to be. I'll read up on Lisbon at the weekend most likely.

dlofnep

The_Minister wrote: »

If we get a reputation as a bunch of whingers who throw out every treaty because we have to compromise in it, even when EVERY other country involved is compromising too, and giving up something, then we will start to find Europe pretty damn chilly.

Ohhh!! It will get "chilly". Well, I'd rather voice my democratic right, regardless of what it is - than be forced into a vote because things mighty get "chilly".

Keep staring, it doesn't make your opinion any more relavant than mine.

nesf

brim4brim wrote: »

I don't honestly believe they care about the future of the country and that they'll get people to vote yes because it means less hassle for them for a few years and then they don't care once they aren't in power and the country is stuck doing something stupid because Europe says so despite it not benefiting us at all.

If all of them were retiring after this term sure, but the vast majority of the TDs want to get re-elected and ****ing over the country now isn't going to help them achieve that. If there's one single thing you can trust about a politician it's their self-serving desire to get back in again or to get into power. Whatever about FF, it would serve FG and Lab in no way to **** over this country in the next few years and have it thrown back at them at the next election. They're just not that stupid.

nesf

dlofnep wrote: »

Ohhh!! It will get "chilly". Well, I'd rather voice my democratic right, regardless of what it is - than be forced into a vote because things mighty get "chilly".

Keep staring, it doesn't make your opinion any more relavant than mine.

Posts like this make me very glad that foreign policy is not something we need referendums on normally. We don't exist in a vacuum, voicing your democratic right is all well and good but if when doing so you deliberately ignore the realities of international politics you're not exactly making much sense. We need trading partners in case you hadn't noticed.

dlofnep

nesf wrote: »

Posts like this make me very glad that foreign policy is not something we need referendums on normally.

So someone differs in opinion to you and you have to respond in such a manner? Mature nesf, very mature. When I'm not putting up with moderation "staring" at me, I have to put up with this. I have a voice in Lisbon, deal with it.

nesf

dlofnep wrote: »

So someone differs in opinion to you and you have to respond in such a manner? Mature nesf, very mature. When I'm not putting up with moderation "staring" at me, I have to put up with this. I have a voice in Lisbon, deal with it.

See, you're entitled to your opinion and you're entitled to vote in whatever way you choose but if you decide to post about it on here you're open to getting your posts picked apart and trying to hide behind "it's my opinion" so you don't have to respond to valid criticisms is just going to earn you sarky responses from people like myself.

dlofnep

nesf wrote: »

See, you're entitled to your opinion and you're entitled to vote in whatever way you choose but if you decide to post about it on here you're open to getting your posts picked apart and trying to hide behind "it's my opinion" so you don't have to respond to valid criticisms is just going to earn you sarky responses from people like myself.

I've no problem with being criticised, but I don't appreciate being talked down to (which has happened on numerous occasions). You could go about your points in a much more mature manner.

I believe I made a valid point when I said I'd rather not make my vote based on pressure from what "I should or should not do". Democracy is about free will, is it not? But according to you, you'd rather there was no vote. Well, there is and that's how it works.

dlofnep

And I see you conveniently edited your post now to include "criticism" instead of a cheap one liner.

sink

dlofnep wrote: »

So someone differs in opinion to you and you have to respond in such a manner? Mature nesf, very mature. When I'm not putting up with moderation "staring" at me, I have to put up with this. I have a voice in Lisbon, deal with it.

Foreign policy is a very complex area. Brown, Berlusconi and Bush are just some of the world leaders that are useless at it. I don't think he was trying to insult you in anyway, foreign policy is more art than science. And most people here respect your right to vote your conscience but if you raise a point of view here people will poke holes in it, that's the purpose of public forums.

dlofnep

sink wrote: »

Foreign policy is a very complex area. Brown, Berlusconi and Bush are just some of the world leaders that are useless at it. I don't think he was trying to insult you in anyway, foreign policy is more art than science. And most people here respect your right to vote your conscience but if you raise a point of view here people will poke holes in it, that's the purpose of public forums.

Sink, I quoted his original reply. It was a one-liner cheap pop. I've no problem with people criticising my posts, so long as it's respectful and constructive.

nesf

dlofnep wrote: »

And I see you conveniently edited your post now to include "criticism" instead of a cheap one liner.

If you look at the post you can see by the lack of an edit time on it I added those sentences within 60 seconds of the post, i.e. four minutes before you initially replied to it. After looking at it I felt a single one liner was unfair. I often edit in extra material to my posts after posting them.

I never edit a post to avoid criticism or fault or escape having to admit I was wrong and if you are insinuating that I did then you need to learn how to read edits before you accuse people of crap like that on here.

dlofnep

nesf wrote: »

If you look at the post you can see by the lack of an edit time on it I added those sentences within 60 seconds of the post, i.e. four minutes before you initially replied to it. After looking at it I felt a single one liner was unfair.

Yes it was unfair, which is why I responded to it. I'm in work, so I don't get to click reply straight away. I had quoted you and that is what I had read up to that point which is in my quote.

Like I said before - I believe we are given the right to vote and should use it, regardless of what pressure is placed upon us. Not everyone is banking on this passing, some will like it - some won't.. We can't suit everybody, but we do have the right to vote and should vote for us and not for anyone else. If their governments wish to give them the vote, then so be it - but if they don't, then that's where their democracy has failed them..

nesf

dlofnep wrote: »

I had quoted you and that is what I had read up to that point which is in my quote.

Then check to see that edits weren't added in after you reply in future before accusing people of editing their posts to escape your comments.

dlofnep

nesf wrote: »

Then check to see that edits weren't added in after you reply in future before accusing people of editing their posts to escape your comments.

You had already made your comment and were satisfied with it when you clicked reply. You felt you could get a quick one in. My original argument stands.

nesf

dlofnep wrote: »

You had already made your comment and were satisfied with it when you clicked reply. You felt you could get a quick one in. My original argument stands.

I wasn't satisfied with it after rereading it, without the additional sentences the point wasn't clear. It's not as snappy as a single line but the criticism still stands, attitudes like yours of "**** em, we shouldn't have to care what they think" are completely unhelpful in the context of international politics and this is an EU treaty we're voting on not a local council election.