Which way will you vote (if at all)

cm2000

PrivateEye wrote: »

Sure I'd vote Fianna Fail in an election tomorrow, and I'm firmly in the No camp. To say 'let the politicians decide for their people' is unkust here. I wouldn't trust Sinn Fein or a looper like Patricia McKenna to walk my dog. They're not the reason I'm voting no...... Party politics don't apply here.

As for Dustin, mentioned above...
The EU dont want our turkeys, and we don't want theirs.
Lisbon Null Points hopefully.

I don't think partisan politics is entirely irrelevant here. there is a very considerable issue of credability and judgement. Fianna Fail have consistently shown good judgement where as Sinn Fein have consistently shown bad judgement. history has shown that, and so there is very much an issue of credibility and judgement here to be considered.

cm2000

johnnyq wrote: »

:eek: OMG I mean really :eek:

So if Biffo told you it was vital for you to run in front of a train would you do so for party lines? I really really hope not.

QUOTE]

no thats my point, i wouldnt support the party if i felt it didnt represent my views.

edanto

johnnyq wrote: »

there are differences in opinions which should be put to a free public vote and not somehow railroaded into a certain side yes/no like sheep because we're told to.

From talking to a lot of people about Lisbon, I think some part of the No vote is the reflex of not wanting to do what we're told by politicians.... or fearing that a small group of EU elite are trying to gather more power.

For me, those reasons aren't strong. Some politicians are corrupt, but not a lot. Politicians and civil servants are the ones that really have experience reading and speaking this crazy legalese language, and they must understand it. It's a consensus document - if it was unfairly weighted towards any one group or country it wouldn't have even gotten out of negotiations.

The procedures it improves need improving and a protest No vote is just immature. Many of the reasons that the No camp have - e.g. the changes in the areas of EU competencies and QVM procedures are in my opinion good and necessary.

Take the case of the Shell to Sea campaigners - they had no satisfaction at local or national level, but then they were able to go to Europe and are finally being listened to with European politicians speaking out on their behalf. If only they had made that fuss when the dodgy deal was done and the exploration rights were given away then we might not have this mess. The EU conducts open and fair tenders, has a justice system that respects all human rights and they are not trying to shaft us.

What evidence is there that FF, FG, and Labour are all trying to deceive us? What about Libertas, with their mysterious funding or Coir, with their thinly veiled hardcore Catholic stance? Libertas haven't answered any questions about where their money comes from - you should ask what their motivations are before swallowing their lines.

johnnyq

@ cm2000

FF - "what are your views - we'll make them ours"

But seriously everyone doesn't except all their partys views as their own. We are capable of some individual thought.

All I ask is that you are informed. www.lisbontreaty2008.ie for unbiased info. Come back here sure if you have questions

johnnyq

edanto wrote: »

Libertas haven't answered any questions about where their money comes from - you should ask what their motivations are before swallowing their lines.

Why would you swallow lines you knew weren't true? That would be stupid.

Trust me, if I have wrong interpretations I would be told be the people on this board long ago.

If these groups have opinions I will read them but if they're wrong don't expect me to be defending them.

Same goes for Biffo too.

edanto

What?

muincav

edanto wrote: »

What about Libertas, with their mysterious funding or Coir, with their thinly veiled hardcore Catholic stance? Libertas haven't answered any questions about where their money comes from - you should ask what their motivations are before swallowing their lines.

Bertie didnt tell us much truth about where he got his money, and was totally supported by his FF colleagues, and we are supposed to trust them to tell us how to vote? I THINK NOT! FF are Arrogant pr**ks

johnnyq

edanto wrote: »

What?

If a claim is made about the treaty I will read it and assess it on its merits. I don't care who says it first.

E.g. If Sinn Fein make a claim, i'm not going to go "well it's sinn fein i'd never vote for them so i'm not going to listen to what they claim"

I will look at the claim, any counter claim and look at the treaty, then decide if it's valid or not. It's called checking something out.

muincav

morchadboruma wrote: »

I'm all for Europe and I'm voting yes and whatever it brings. The EU brought this decrepit nation out of the dark ages (I'm one of the few who remembers those times) and now we're all uppity about stuff we normally never give 2 ****s about, because we're more interested in the price of drink. The EU is like the HSE at the moment, it's not functioning very well and costs a feckin fortune, the Treaty will make it more efficient... you don't want that..... vote no I'm happy for you....

Yeah- Just like Mary Harney made the HSE more efficient...lol..and how many people will suffer as a result?

marksquirt

It annoyed me to find that all of the political parties campaigning was (as far as I have come across) standing at the train station and shoving leaflets in my face. They've approached people at vunerable times - on the way to or on the way from work and when they can't stop to question.
If they want me to vote either way, inform me of why I should don't tell me without an explanation.

johnnyq

Efficiency.....

Just don't forget it is argued that a dictatorship is the most efficient form of government. No one with differing opinions getting in the way and all that.....

Efficiency and Accountability don't always parallel.

We see that even in lisbon treaty ratification.

It certainly would be more efficient if Ireland like all the other countries didn't vote in this treaty in the first place and left it to biffo.

But y'know what? Some accountability is nice too.

edanto

marksquirt wrote: »

If they want me to vote either way, inform me of why I should don't tell me without an explanation.

Here are the Labour reasons:

1. The Charter of Fundamental Rights will become part of the European Union Treaties and will, for the first time, make it a basic part of the EU that working people will have "the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements at the appropriate levels and, in cases of conflicts of interest, to take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action"
2. In addition, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, inserts in the EU Treaties, a range of rights for workers, including rights to information and consultation; protection against unfair dismissal; fair and just working conditions; and entitlement to social security and social assistance.
3. The Treaty contains a "social clause" whereby social issues, such as the promotion of a high level of employment, adequate social protection and the fight against social exclusion must be taken into account when the EU is defining and implementing all policies.
4. The Lisbon Treaty will strengthen people's rights to Public Services. It sets down a legal basis for legislating on public services, and includes a specific protocol on public services. In addition the Charter unequivocally gives citizen rights of access to public services.

marksquirt

edanto wrote: »

Here are the Labour reasons:

1. The Charter of Fundamental Rights will become part of the European Union Treaties and will, for the first time, make it a basic part of the EU that working people will have "the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements at the appropriate levels and, in cases of conflicts of interest, to take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action"
2. In addition, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, inserts in the EU Treaties, a range of rights for workers, including rights to information and consultation; protection against unfair dismissal; fair and just working conditions; and entitlement to social security and social assistance.
3. The Treaty contains a "social clause" whereby social issues, such as the promotion of a high level of employment, adequate social protection and the fight against social exclusion must be taken into account when the EU is defining and implementing all policies.
4. The Lisbon Treaty will strengthen people's rights to Public Services. It sets down a legal basis for legislating on public services, and includes a specific protocol on public services. In addition the Charter unequivocally gives citizen rights of access to public services.

Too little too late, I've made my decision. I like many of my colleagues are fed up of being uninformed by political parties. They could knock on my door when they want to be voted for but you don't see them for dust when you need something.

marksquirt

marksquirt wrote: »

It annoyed me to find that all of the political parties campaigning was (as far as I have come across) standing at the train station and shoving leaflets in my face. They've approached people at vunerable times - on the way to or on the way from work and when they can't stop to question.
If they want me to vote either way, inform me of why I should don't tell me without an explanation.

Yes I felt that way when accosted by a woman from Coir...

marksquirt

I'm in total agreement with muincav. An appointment for a ten month old would take a year to get and when we went private(we were lucky to be in a position to) the consultant said she would have had hearing and speech problems if we had of waited......cheers Mary Harney

zig

marksquirt wrote: »

Too little too late, I've made my decision. I like many of my colleagues are fed up of being uninformed by political parties. They could knock on my door when they want to be voted for but you don't see them for dust when you need something.

so you and your colleagues are taking out your bitterness of politians on the rest of the country and helping them get denied the chance of a prosperace future.

johnnyq

edanto wrote: »

Here are the Labour reasons:

1. The Charter of Fundamental Rights will become part of the European Union Treaties and will, for the first time, make it a basic part of the EU that working people will have "the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements at the appropriate levels and, in cases of conflicts of interest, to take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action"
Very debateable since these were already taken into account in the lavel judgement against workers rights. They are a summary not something new in their own right


2. In addition, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, inserts in the EU Treaties, a range of rights for workers, including rights to information and consultation; protection against unfair dismissal; fair and just working conditions; and entitlement to social security and social assistance.
see above

3. The Treaty contains a "social clause" whereby social issues, such as the promotion of a high level of employment, adequate social protection and the fight against social exclusion must be taken into account when the EU is defining and implementing all policies.
"The concern many of us have with the Social Clause is that it will go the same way as the objectives of social cohesion and environmental sustainability in the EU’s 2000 Lisbon Strategy for Competitiveness. When the Commission launched this competitiveness strategy, it received a broad welcome for seeking to combine economic, social and environmental objectives. But by its mid-term review in 2005, it was clear that the Commission had abandoned the social and environmental elements, sacrificing them on the altar of a narrowly-defined concept of economic competitiveness. There is little doubt, given the ideological make-up of the EU Parliament, Commission and Council that the Social Clause will suffer a similar fate: nicely worded but never to affect any meaningful change in social or economic policy."

.

edanto

marksquirt wrote: »

I like many of my colleagues are fed up of being uninformed by political parties. They could knock on my door when they want to be voted for but you don't see them for dust when you need something.

That's just pure lazy. There's been info about this treaty our for ages - months ago I posted a link to a doc published by the IIEA showing not only the whole Lisbon Treaty, but also extracts from all the other treaties showing how it changed them.

Did you call any of your politicians to ask them questions? What did you do about visiting their websites to read things? Or did you literally expect someone from a political party to knock on your door and say 'Any questions about Lisbon?'

They were probably surprised by how the slick No campaign (supported by the highly trustable Murdoch newspapers) gained traction.

edanto

johnnyq wrote: »

Very debateable since these were already taken into account in the lavel judgement against workers rights. They are a summary not something new in their own right

No, mate! They were touched on in the lavel judgement, but are enshrined in this document.

As to your point above about problems with the implementation of EU agreements, the cure for that is to vote for better MEPs.

Another cure is to vote to streamline, open and increase the effectiveness of the EU machinery. By voting YES tomorrow.

muincav

zig wrote: »

so you and your colleagues are taking out your bitterness of politians on the rest of the country and helping them get denied the chance of a prosperace future.

Wrong- We are voting No to give them a chance to go back an re-negotiate a better deal to the benefit of all OUR country.....cant you all see that or are you just too blinded by government bul**hit? What is good for them is not allways good for us!

edanto

muincav wrote: »

We are voting No to give them a chance to go back an re-negotiate a better deal to the benefit of all OUR country.

This is one of my favourite 'no' reasons to argue against.

Please outline the specifc improvements you would like to see in the Lisbon Treaty and your strategy for securing agreement with the other members if you want to do something like increasing the Irish voting power.

johnnyq

edanto wrote: »

This is one of my favourite 'no' reasons to argue against.

Please outline the specifc improvements you would like to see in the Lisbon Treaty and your strategy for securing agreement with the other members if you want to do something like increasing the Irish voting power.

If we all seem to be in agreement about the lavel case then a clause to overrule that would be nice (i'm not convinced by your argument on the charter, from my reading the underlying parts of it are very much in force, it's just not called a *charter*)

I went into a detailed post recently about this lately, so not redoing it. Forming a commission with junior comm minsters like junior minsters is certainly not out of the question. Specific military requirements on Ireland (military capabilities etc) can be left out without affecting other states for starters.

ninty9er

muincav wrote: »

Bertie didnt tell us much truth about where he got his money, and was totally supported by his FF colleagues, and we are supposed to trust them to tell us how to vote? I THINK NOT! FF are Arrogant pr**ks

I'll have that argument with you another day, but be it true of my 78,000 colleagues or not, WHAT THE FUCK HAS IT GOT TO DO WITH THE REFORM TREATY??

Hoojah Nickabolokov

- Not one single good reason to vote yes
- Scaremongering from yes side e.g. if No vote carries the classic: "Everyone in Europe will hate us and bad things will happen" ROFL.
- My vote shall be a resounding No.

Thanks

bogwalrus

marksquirt wrote: »

It annoyed me to find that all of the political parties campaigning was (as far as I have come across) standing at the train station and shoving leaflets in my face. They've approached people at vunerable times - on the way to or on the way from work and when they can't stop to question.
If they want me to vote either way, inform me of why I should don't tell me without an explanation.

desperate times call for desperate measures i suppose. Thats all campaigners are good for anyway.handing out leaflets and pissing you off. Should have nothing to do with how you will vote on the actual treaty though. If your smart you will leave all these silly campaigning tricks to the side and just vote yes or no on what the treaty says.

If this does go the no way then i assure you it will be years and alot of time wasted on trying to write a new treaty to satisfy the (extremely conservative) irish people. Time which could be spent on more productive things like climate change, projects for initiating alternative technlogies for fuel, preparation for forseable threats in all forms.........its all about time.

With the rate the world is going at and the huge changes that happen in the world every yeah you can bet that there are turbulent times ahead and Europe has to be a benchmark for the world and nit picking this treaty is exactly what is not needed. Its going to make things worse for all european countries (as far as my opinion goes). So many silly no arguements out there. you would swear you were trying to prove something with all the reasons for voting no. None seem to have any substance to them. Trying to be political rock stars are we. Bono is voting yes. Geldof is also. And they are the biggest celebs in the world.

I do think it will be a yes vote anyway tomorrow. people always hesitate and get fearful of no decisions. This is what happened with nice 2nd time i believe. people were afraid to say no again. And thank fully they said yes:D

(i bet i pissed off some no voters ...moiahahaha)

johnnyq

bogwalrus wrote: »

I do think it will be a yes vote anyway tomorrow. people always hesitate and get fearful of no decisions. This is what happened with nice 2nd time i believe. people were afraid to say no again. And thank fully they said yes:D

(i bet i pissed off some no voters ...moiahahaha)

Not really tbh#

i am going to be so embarressed if it goes the no way. More embarrassed then when we sent dustin in for the Euro vision.

this pissed me off more. At least I will respect whatever the outcome is.

bogwalrus

johnnyq wrote: »

Not really tbh#



this pissed me off more. At least I will respect whatever the outcome is.

I actually laffed at the response you gave to it the first time. are you irish?

Why did it piss you off?

bogwalrus

Thats all well and good about respecting the outcome. I think everyone will do that. It will just be a yay or nay for people. And for the people that are voting yay it will be more of a disappointment as we seem to clearly see the benefits to this treaty while the nay's are somewhat complacent about their no voting status.

Scofflaw

bogwalrus wrote: »

I do think it will be a yes vote anyway tomorrow. people always hesitate and get fearful of no decisions. This is what happened with nice 2nd time i believe. people were afraid to say no again. And thank fully they said yes:D

Maybe, maybe not. I voted No first time at Nice, because the government really was taking the piss. They haven't been great this time either, but they are streets ahead of where they were on Nice I. As far as I recall, the booklet they sent out basically said "this is a very complicated document, and you should just vote Yes because you've no chance of understanding it." Nor was there anything like the material available - no guides, no analyses, next to nothing.

I appreciate this will start a load of people jumping up and down telling me that it's exactly the same this time, but it ain't. Nice I was dreadful. Nice 2 was better, but still nothing like this one - there's a positive avalanche of information, to the point where people are suffering overload rather than anything else.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dave!

I resisted clicking the announcement cos thought it would depress me.

It's alot more positive than the AH one at least!

But still can't see Lisbon getting through