Which way will you vote (if at all)

trotter_inc

Donaldhino wrote: »

I will be voting No - as I do not take kindly to threats, guilt trips or negative campaigning.

That's a crazy reason to vote No if that's your only reason! Educate yourself on it and make an INFORMED DECISION, not because you're claiming of negative campaigning.

VoidStarNull

Unfortunately the Lisbon treaty has nothing to say about threats, guilt trips, or negative campaigning.

It appears likely that these wll continue regardless of whether the treaty is passed or not.

molloyjh

Donaldhino wrote: »

Our econonmy grew strong in spite of, not because of the EU. In the 80s our economy was a basket case - we do not owe the EU anything.

Yeah all that funding means nothing, you tell 'em Donaldhino! :rolleyes:

Khannie

Donaldhino wrote: »

Our econonmy grew strong in spite of, not because of the EU. In the 80s our economy was a basket case - we do not owe the EU anything.

HAHAHAHA. Best post I've read all week.

jimmysull

Donaldhino makes one good point and one rubbish point,....In my opinion.

1. Of course the EU has been a factor in the success of our economy. They have pumped Billions into our economy. Basic economics tells us that if you take that money out of the economy then the growth would have been less or negative.....and that is despite the fact that much of it ended up in the pockets of developer friends of our main government party.

2. I don't like being threatened either! I have no problem with the government, FG, Lab etc threatening me with exagerated doomsday scenarios but I take particular exception to Manuel Barosso threatening us that we will be marginalised in Europe if we excercise the democratic option of saying no.

I support the Lisbon treaty but will be voting no. for the following reasons:
A. I believe that the government that squandered the fruits of exceptional economic growth over the last 10 years should be sent a message. I will vote Yes in the second Lisbon Referendum (vis-a-vis Nice Referendum)

B. Read my point on Manuel Barosso above

lisbon_lions

Donaldhino wrote: »

I will be voting No - as I do not take kindly to threats, guilt trips or negative campaigning.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5304/

Our econonmy grew strong in spite of, not because of the EU. In the 80s our economy was a basket case - we do not owe the EU anything.

An interesting post from that article reads:
"Indeed, in many civilised, democratic countries it is illegal for political parties to offer voters financial reward for their ballots. "

Is that not what Cowen arranged with 80,000 members of the farmers union? Who says you cannot buy votes?

ruskin

"If you can't convince them, confuse them" - Harry Truman, former U.S. President

I beg all of those people who don't want Lisbon to be passed to please, please come out and vote no. Every single vote matters. Today we have a final chance to speak out for democracy and freedom. Vote NO

Donaldhino

I know exactly what the Lisbon Treaty is, it is a re-hash of the failed EU constitution - which was rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005. It's not about making the EU more efficient either - it will actually create a new EU President and Foreign Minister, do we really want more un-elected politicians making decisions for us?

jimmysull

ruskin wrote: »

I beg all of those people who don't want Lisbon to be passed to please, please come out and vote no. Every single vote matters.

That is the key, walk the talk!

Captain Ginger

I came into this thread a firm NO voter, after reading a few comments I actually decided to read and research exactly what will happen if either side should win and I am now a YES voter.

I'm willing to bet that most NO voters have not studied up on this and are just falling for scare tactics because that's how I was going and how the rest of my family seem to be.

So my bit of advice to all voters is to spend the time looking it up if you can and make an educated vote, even if it's a NO vote at least you will know why you're voting.

Donaldhino

I will be voting No in this referendum and, unlike most other people, I will be voting No in the second referendum they will push on us when we reject the first one - as they did in 2002.

lisbon_lions

One thing that should not be overlooked is the use of soft velvety rhetoric in todays politics to try and win over the masses.

A Yes to the EU treaty will mean you are in the union, you are part of a group, welcomed if you will, a no will mean you not for the union, you are isolated out on fringes.

A Yes will help streamline decision making. The last time I checked, streamline meant "To construct or design in a form that offers the least resistance". Now, I dont know about you but I certainly would not want contraversial issues to meet little resistance when put on the table..

Just my .02

trotter_inc

Captain Ginger wrote: »

I'm willing to bet that most NO voters have not studied up on this and are just falling for scare tactics because that's how I was going and how the rest of my family seem to be.

Exactly my point!

jimmysull

lisbon_lions wrote: »

One thing that should not be overlooked is the use of soft velvety rhetoric in todays politics to try and win over the masses.

Another thing I noticed was RTE, while appearing unbiased always supported a yes vote when you read between the lines.

They would always say things like "leaders of the No campaign including Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams" subtly reminding you of association of the No side with Sinn Fein. This COULD subconsciously frighten off some of the less left wing people leaning towards a NO vote.

They would justify this in that Sinn Fein is the only Dail party advocating a NO but I just wonder??

sink

lisbon_lions wrote: »

One thing that should not be overlooked is the use of soft velvety rhetoric in todays politics to try and win over the masses.

A Yes to the EU treaty will mean you are in the union, you are part of a group, welcomed if you will, a no will mean you not for the union, you are isolated out on fringes.

A Yes will help streamline decision making. The last time I checked, streamline meant "To construct or design in a form that offers the least resistance". Now, I dont know about you but I certainly would not want contraversial issues to meet little resistance when put on the table..

Just my .02

Do you realise that all that is just empty rhetoric and does not reflect the actual treaty itself. You should read up on the actual treaty and see whether there will be less political resistance or bureaucratic resistance, as these are two different things, the former is desirable the latter is not. Imo the Lisbon treaty strengthens the option of political resistance (easier to block through new QMV, more co-decision with the parliament) while gets rid of bureaucratic resistance (Slimmed down commission, merging of three pillars).

VoidStarNull

jimmysull wrote: »

Another thing I noticed was RTE, while appearing unbiased always supported a yes vote when you read between the lines.

They would always say things like "leaders of the No campaign including Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams" subtly reminding you of association of the No side with Sinn Fein. This COULD subconsciously frighten off some of the less left wing people leaning towards a NO vote.

I'm pretty sure I've also heard them mention Declan Ganly and Dustin the Turkey .

seamus

jimmysull wrote: »

Another thing I noticed was RTE, while appearing unbiased always supported a yes vote when you read between the lines.

They would always say things like "leaders of the No campaign including Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams" subtly reminding you of association of the No side with Sinn Fein. This COULD subconsciously frighten off some of the less left wing people leaning towards a NO vote.

They would justify this in that Sinn Fein is the only Dail party advocating a NO but I just wonder??

You're seeing things that aren't there. You could very much insert the words "Yes", "Fine Gael" and "Endy Kenny" into that sentence and it wouldn't change the tone of it.

Donaldhino

Hey, wait a minute! I could actually be working for the yes campaigning, subtlety using negative psychology to get yes votes…

sink

jimmysull wrote: »

Another thing I noticed was RTE, while appearing unbiased always supported a yes vote when you read between the lines.

They would always say things like "leaders of the No campaign including Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams" subtly reminding you of association of the No side with Sinn Fein. This COULD subconsciously frighten off some of the less left wing people leaning towards a NO vote.

They would justify this in that Sinn Fein is the only Dail party advocating a NO but I just wonder??

Well if you were a reporter who would you say is supporting the no campaign?

jimmysull

seamus wrote: »

You're seeing things that aren't there. You could very much insert the words "Yes", "Fine Gael" and "Endy Kenny" into that sentence and it wouldn't change the tone of it.

HAha good point!!! The fear factor!

My point about RTE is worth exploring though...
Their analysis would always come to the same “conclusion” as the Yes campaign.
For example on the question of corporation tax, Prime Time concluded a number of times that there was no risk. (in agreement with Brian Lenihan, Richard Bruton etc etc).
But there is a legitimate concern that the clause prohibiting national governments “distorting competition” could over-ride this. The real fact is nobody knows how this would play out so you can’t come to a definitive conclusion that there is no risk to our tax system as RTE did throughout the campaign.

sink

jimmysull wrote: »

HAha good point!!! The fear factor!

My point about RTE is worth exploring though...
Their analysis would always come to the same “conclusion” as the Yes campaign.
For example on the question of corporation tax, Prime Time concluded a number of times that there was no risk. (in agreement with Brian Lenihan, Richard Bruton etc etc).
But there is a legitimate concern that the clause prohibiting national governments “distorting competition” could over-ride this. The real fact is nobody knows how this would play out so you can’t come to a definitive conclusion that there is no risk to our tax system as RTE did throughout the campaign.

That concern is completely false i'm afraid. You should read this thread here and in particular Scofflaw's posts

lisbon_lions

sink wrote: »

Do you realise that all that is just empty rhetoric and does not reflect the actual treaty itself. You should read up on the actual treaty and see whether there will be less political resistance or bureaucratic resistance, as these are two different things, the former is desirable the latter is not. Imo the Lisbon treaty strengthens the option of political resistance (easier to block through new QMV, more co-decision with the parliament) while gets rid of bureaucratic resistance (Slimmed down commission, merging of three pillars).

A yes vote, thereby substituting unanimous vote for QMV will streghten the abilities for political resitance? I don't see the validity of your point there tbh.

My initial post was on the observation of rhetoric used, and not meant to be anyway rhetorical in its content.

O'Morris

I'm voting no because I don't want to see any further erosion of our national sovereignty. I want Ireland to be an independent country in which laws affecting the Irish people are made in an Irish parliament which is elected by and accountable to the Irish people.

The Lisbon treaty is an unnecessary treaty. People on the yes side can make the case that the changes proposed in the treaty are desirable but I haven't yet heard anyone show me that they're necessary. The EU has functioned reliably without the Lisbon treaty since EU enlargement so what's the point of fixing something that isn't broken? Particularly as that fix would involve a further sacrifice of our sovereignty?

Don't accept the scaremongering. The alternative to the Lisbon treaty is not recession or war or isolation. The alternative to Lisbon is the EU that we've seen working well over the last three years.

sink

lisbon_lions wrote: »

A yes vote, thereby substituting unanimous vote for QMV will streghten the abilities for political resitance? I don't see the validity of your point there tbh.

Our ability to block legislation in the new QMV system is increased by 6%, so while we loose vetoes in two areas of importance (energy and environment) we gain the ability to better block areas in agriculture, fisheries, common market etc.

lisbon_lions

sink wrote: »

Our ability to block legislation in the new QMV system is increased by 6%, so while we loose vetoes in two areas of importance (energy and environment) we gain the ability to better block areas in agriculture, fisheries, common market etc.

Whereas the status quo gives us a full say in all areas. Sorry sink, but correct me if i'm wrong, I dont see the benefit of moving. Currently we have a definitive say in all areas (under unanimous vote system).

molloyjh

lisbon_lions wrote: »

A yes vote, thereby substituting unanimous vote for QMV will streghten the abilities for political resitance? I don't see the validity of your point there tbh.

My initial post was on the observation of rhetoric used, and not meant to be anyway rhetorical in its content.

QMV is not new and is used in a number of areas already. You're thinking of the fact that there have been a few new additions to what requires QMV rather than unanimity. QMV in itself has been reworked to be more democratically represenatative of the member states.

sink

lisbon_lions wrote: »

Whereas the status quo gives us a full say in all areas. Sorry sink, but correct me if i'm wrong, I dont see the benefit of moving. Currently we have a definitive say in all areas (under unanimous vote system).

How likely do you think it is that we would want to block legislation in the areas of energy and the environment? Germany with it's large car industry and Poland with it's large coal industry might want to, but that would probably be to our detriment. We are far more likely to want to block legislation in the other areas I mentioned. We loose veto's in other areas too, but these are not as significant, justice and policing legislation we can opt out of, and all the rest are small areas that are not likely to have any real effect on us (sport, internal EU structures etc.).

thebaldsoprano

Voting yes based on the following three documents I could gain some understanding of and one argument.

Documents are:

1) Our Constitution
2) The amendment we'll be voting on
3) At the 11th hour, the Crotty Judgement

Argument is as follows:

It looks very unlikely that our politicians will be able to force through any major changes down the road that conflict with our Constitution and aren't currently in the Treaty without asking us and referring the matter to a referendum.

Given the resources and funds available to the various no camps, if there were anything seriously damaging to Ireland in the Treaty, it's very likely they'd have found it and informed us about it and wouldn't be needing to make some of their more outlandish claims like Ireland having to partake in EU military operations, or be using information highly selectively to bicker about the finer points of a political structure that has a track record of being very good for Ireland.

Not sure what the policy here is re linking to other sites, but if you've concerns about us giving away too much power to the politicians, the following short video on the Crotty Judgement is well worth checking out:

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=7UAuUfxbVD4

It's impartial and sticks to the facts, if it's inappropriate to link to it here I'll gladly remove the link.

If this peeks your interest, the text of the judgement can be found here:

http://www.eiregobrach.ie/Crotty%20Case%201987.htm

Unlike the Treaty, this is actually quite readable.

If you're still voting no based on lack of understanding of the whole thing I'd completely understand, our politicians would do well to remember who'is paying their wages and give us a readable document we can vote on.

IRLConor, thanks again for highlighting the Crotty Judgement in a clear manner, very refreshing to bump into someone like yerself in my meanderings through the Sea of Waffle.

Thankfully Dev and his buddies had some foresight into the nature of politicians when devising our Constitution, it would've been nice if they'd had the same foresight about offshore gas reserves :D:D

VoidStarNull

O'Morris wrote: »

I'm voting no because I don't want to see any further erosion of our national sovereignty. I want Ireland to be an independent country in which laws affecting the Irish people are made in an Irish parliament which is elected by and accountable to the Irish people.

The point of the EU has always been to pool some soverignty in order to achieve things together that we can't individually.

That principle has worked brilliantly for Ireland. We have proved to be masters of working the EU system, and we have gained enormous power and influence on the world stage by being a member.

sink

You can find more info on the new QMV system here.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055311438

You can find more info on veto's here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055308452

edit: 500 post's, go me!