Which way will you vote (if at all)

AckwelFoley

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

the thought of extreme left and right mixing makes me very worried...

There is no extre left or right supporting the treaty here.

Ireland dont have an extreme right wing party.

FF are too large a party to nail down to left or right of centre. similarly with FG, Dempsy is left of centre.. Lenihan.. right of centre
Labour are left of centre
PD's right of centre
Greens Left of centre.. similar to Labour..
And Sinn fein.. well..as loony leftwing as you will find..

Just do a bit of checking up on the types of parties they are supporting in the EU.. communist parties...

The treaty has being negotiated, our elected politicians have brokered a deal.
It is up to us to now maker our decision.

Im more than confident of the YES vote passing. Statistically, the NO voters are less likely to vote.

Rb

Has scofflaw revealed which political party he's a member of yet btw?

AckwelFoley

Rb wrote: »

Has scofflaw revealed which political party he's a member of yet btw?

Im going to take a shot in the dark and say FF.



Ive voted FF for 12 years now... i would support more of their policies than any of the oppisition parties.

Scofflaw

Rb wrote: »

Has scofflaw revealed which political party he's a member of yet btw?

I'm not a member of any, and never have been. I usually vote Green #1, Labour #2, if that's any help.

cordially,
Scofflaw

AckwelFoley

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not a member of any, and never have been. I usually vote Green #1, Labour #2, if that's any help.

cordially,
Scofflaw

How wrong i was.:D

Mr.Nice Guy

I'll be voting No. Why? Read the sig.

Bard

Gu3rr1lla wrote: »

Yeah Norway looks like a nice place! They're not in the EU so they own all their own resources, can manage their own economy, and decide their own laws! Plus they get all the advantages of trading within Europe!

So it's THEIR fault Sweden looks like a massive c0ck hanging over the rest of Europe on the Euro coins?

I'm (almost) undecided but leaning mostly to the Yes side.

Evil Phil

super_furry wrote: »

I'd vote yes, but won't get the chance to because of work and other comittments.

If your employer doesn't give you time off to vote they're breaking the law.

Captain Ginger

To be honest I don't know a great deal about this treaty, I had heard some pretty bad things about it and was set on voting no, but after reading all the pro yes posts in the thread I'm going to do some research and make a more educated decision.

Rb

Rb wrote: »

Has scofflaw revealed which political party he's a member of yet btw?

Loaded and weak

Let me put one to you:

Has Rb debated the nitty gritty of Lisbon with Scofflaw yet,if not why not ?

HydeRoad

I have trawled all the arguments too.

I have not found one single substantial reason for voting yes, other than lots of woolly, ethereal stuff about it being 'better' for Ireland and 'better' for the EU. Better how? Spell it out. I understand there are a whole lot more countries in the EU, how the political machine needs to be streamlined to incorporate that. How does this treaty do that? "It makes the EU more democratic." How? I have found lots of good arguments that tell me it won't be more democratic. Not one argument telling me in practical detail how it will.

Besides, and it is the wrong reason for passing judgment, I know, but how in the name of God can I trust a word out of the mouths of the political machine that squandered ten years of boom in this country, who spin so much nonsense that nobody knows what is honest any more, and who have let a situation grow where ordinary people on reasonable salaries cannot afford a mortgage on a house to live in, while a golden circle of choice people pour the wealth of this country abroad into foreign property and offshore accounts?

NO.

You have two days to convince me otherwise.

is_that_so

HydeRoad wrote: »

I have trawled all the arguments too.

You have two days to convince me otherwise.

While this may help you are still reading opinions based on their interpretation of facts, even if it is factually correct. IMO you'll be a lot clearer by reading up on the information on the treaty and not the arguments here. It may not alter your position but you'll be informed. It also means you are probably in a better position to appraise all of those arguments.

HydeRoad

HydeRoad wrote: »

"It makes the EU more democratic." How? I have found lots of good arguments that tell me it won't be more democratic. Not one argument telling me in practical detail how it will.

I'd advise that you just do a search of scofflaws posts.
Heres one that answers that question for a start I'll quote the relevant part of the post in bold for you " *currently the Parliament gets to vote on 80% of EU legislation under the so-called 'co-decision procedure'. If Lisbon passes this will increase to 95% of EU legislation."

Besides, and it is the wrong reason for passing judgment, I know, but how in the name of God can I trust a word out of the mouths of the political machine that squandered ten years of boom in this country, who spin so much nonsense that nobody knows what is honest any more, and who have let a situation grow where ordinary people on reasonable salaries cannot afford a mortgage on a house to live in, while a golden circle of choice people pour the wealth of this country abroad into foreign property and offshore accounts?

Because two other parties that have been stern in beating that same drum are fervently in favour of Lisbon ie Labour and FG.

Personally I've heard a lot of garbage about the privatisation of public services by the No side.
It's rather telling that the head of the main public service sector union,the CPSU is strongly in favour of the treaty.
As I've often said turkeys don't vote for Xmas.
The head of the public service union isn't going to be advocating the ruination of his sector and it's jobs

The importance for workers of giving extra powers to the European Parliament, as would happen under Lisbon, could be illustrated, he said, by MEPs’ opposition to the European Commission’s original services directive.
“The importance of co-decision was seen very clearly with the services directive when its original neo-liberal orientation was significantly altered by amendment in the European Parliament.
“Quite apart from the improvement of the social dimension included in the treaty itself, the capacity of trade unions and other civil society groups to influence legislation through the European Parliament will be significant and this in itself will contribute to the social dimension of Europe.

link

Hope that helps.

Orion

Agent Smith wrote: »

i voted yes becuase i believe in europe.

i voted no becuase i believe in europe. :pac:

lanod2407

I'm voting NO after much reading, listening and discussing.

Main issue is the wide range of possible interpretations of the narrative, and the fact that it will be the European Courts who would ultimately decide if the Treaty means that such items as Enhanced Cooperation over-riding a country's ability to determine it's own taxes, etc.

I've listened to both sides of the campaign and tried to distil the realities from both sides. Also read the Referendum Commission's documentation - and the upshot of it all is that I can see how people can take dramatically different interpretations from the Treaty - so, if that's the case no-one here can say for certain what will happen - it'll be the European Courts who will make the legally binding assessments - not the Church, or IBEC, or Fianna Fail, or Sinn Fein, or Libertas, or Eamonn Dunphy, or Michael Martin, or the guy in the pub! Therefore, it's incumbent on us to vote No because the meaning of the Treaty is too ambiguous.

People say that this has been in the pipeline for 7 years and a No vote would be a disaster - if that's the case, I'd say that the document should have been in far better condition after 7 years of work!;)

lanod2407

Deleted User wrote: »

As I've often said turkeys don't vote for Xmas.

Hope that helps.

Let's face the facts here in this little country: In the past year the Irish people have voted for Two Turkeys (Bertie & Dustin for those of us who haven't had the coffee yet this morning!) - neither of which has managed to go the distance .......... I'd say there's every chance we'll make it three in a row and manage to vote for the Turkey that is the Lisbon Treaty; except this one will definitely go the distance!

oscarBravo

lanod2407 wrote: »

...it will be the European Courts who would ultimately decide if the Treaty means that such items as Enhanced Cooperation over-riding a country's ability to determine it's own taxes, etc.

No, it won't. The courts can't decide something that's at odds with the treaties (anymore than our Supreme Court can decide something that's at odds with our Constitution), and what you've just described is at odds with the treaties.

po0k

This is about as succinct as I can get while in work:
I look for a network society, more competence in local government first.
Centralising power in Germany and France is not a particularly good idea in my view, and it has historical precedent.
Roman Empire II, pre-fall.

As for the military issue, there is far too much money being made in the arms trade for it NOT to lead us (europe) into major continual conflict overseas.
Also, the use of the word "terrorism". That old chestnut. Terrorist or Freedom Fighter? A banana republic who would like to actually profit from the exploitation of their natural resources, and not just the corrupt figurehead government?
Gotta rally round for the coming war with the Chinese in Africa.

I simply do not trust politicians, or their cronies.

There is also the issue of the Charter of Human Rights and the UK's demand for a guarantee that it won't affect their labour laws - which is suspicious enough to make me wary. So cheap labour from eastern europe on the sly, treat em like **** and be none the worse for it. Nice one m'Lord.

I'm voting no to Lisbon.

Also, Fúck Sinn Féin.

molloyjh

po0k wrote: »

This is about as succinct as I can get while in work:
I look for a network society, more competence in local government first.
Centralising power in Germany and France is not a particularly good idea in my view, and it has historical precedent.
Roman Empire II, pre-fall.

As for the military issue, there is far too much money being made in the arms trade for it NOT to lead us (europe) into major continual conflict overseas.
Also, the use of the word "terrorism". That old chestnut. Terrorist or Freedom Fighter? A banana republic who would like to actually profit from the exploitation of their natural resources, and not just the corrupt figurehead government?
Gotta rally round for the coming war with the Chinese in Africa.

I simply do not trust politicians, or their cronies.

There is also the issue of the Charter of Human Rights and the UK's demand for a guarantee that it won't affect their labour laws - which is suspicious enough to make me wary. So cheap labour from eastern europe on the sly, treat em like **** and be none the worse for it. Nice one m'Lord.

I'm voting no to Lisbon.

Also, Fúck Sinn Féin.

1. Power is not being centralised in Europe. The EU will not be deciding on any policy issues that they are not already deciding now. Many of the changes are how the process works.

2. The military aspect is for defense purposes only, basically with the intention that if one EU country is attacked they can rely on the other EU member states for support. The same applies to terrorism, i.e. if one member state is attacked they can rely on support from the others.

3. I don't trust politicians either, but that doesn't have any bearing on the Lisbon Treaty. I haven't paid them much attention oer the last few weeks. Instead I busied myself getting a handle on what the thing was about and deciding for myself.

VoidStarNull

I'm voting yes, for the following reasons:

1. Every government in the EU believes that the structures need to be reformed to make the larger EU more effective.

2. Given that reform is inevitable, Ireland's negotiators have done an excellent job of protecting our interests in this process. It was agreed from the outset that reform would only happen on a unanimous basis - nothing happens until everyone agrees. This strengthened the hand of smaller countries considerably and allowed us to get terms that are equal or superior to those that apply to the larger countries. We also got full protection on key concerns like neutrality, abortion, and tax.

3. Many of the reforms will make the EU more transparent and democratic. For example, not everyone realizes that EU decisions are made by elected national ministers in the council of ministers (and not by "unelected bureaucrats"). The council of ministers are partly to blame for this because they have kept their discussions and votes closed to the public. But under Lisbon these meetings and votes will be made in public. This alone would make the treaty worth voting for, and is just one example of how the treaty makes the EU more democratic.

4. No-one knows what will happen if the treaty falls, but I strongly suspect that one consequence will the abandonment of the principle of unanimity for the reform process. The argument will be made that it is not possible to obtain unanimous agreement between 27 member states and that some states should be allowed to stay outside the reformed EU whiles others proceed by themselves. Abandonment of this principle will impair the negotiating position of Ireland and other small countries, making it more difficult for us to influence the reform proposals and more likely that we end up outside the reformed EU.

lanod2407

lanod2407 wrote: »

Let's face the facts here in this little country: In the past year the Irish people have voted for Two Turkeys (Bertie & Dustin for those of us who haven't had the coffee yet this morning!) - neither of which has managed to go the distance .......... I'd say there's every chance we'll make it three in a row and manage to vote for the Turkey that is the Lisbon Treaty; except this one will definitely go the distance!

The problem I have with that satement is that FF support in recent polls is around 42%.
So clearly a lot if not all or more of the people that voted in our 60% turnout election don't agree with you.

The question is of course why do people feel like that and my answer is to paraphrase,they do vote for Xmas because they think Xmas has largely been delivered in terms of the big party that the last 10 years has been.

po0k

...if you were a property developer with a thumb on the planning office.

tbh

Mary-Lou wants me to vote no. Garrett Fitzgerald wants me to vote yes.

I'm voting yes.

r3nu4l

Yes, but living in the UK, I won't get a vote

mike65

Bearing in mind the huge foreign population and the fact teh boards is on teh interweb, an option for I am not allowed to vote would have been good.

oops just saw r3nu4l. Democracy my arse as Jim Royale would say.


Mike.

HydeRoad

Deleted User wrote: »

The question is of course why do people feel like that and my answer is to paraphrase,they do vote for Xmas because they think Xmas has largely been delivered in terms of the big party that the last 10 years has been.

Well, they are paying for the party now. Only true to form, the ones at the top don't have to worry so much as the little man, who funny enough generations ago were the people FF were supposed to represent...

Either the result might be NO, or a YES will scrape through very tightly. Either way, it will be an embarrassment to this embarrassment of a government. But will they learn heck from it. We are in this position, an arrogant, befuddled party gloating on the back of ten years of excess and squandered boom, because of ten years of hapless and pathetic opposition. Had the parties been reversed, we would be in exactly the same position.

Politics in this country is dishonest and dysfunctional. It's all spin and show, no respect for state or citizen. But you have to live in hope...

dardoz

the sad truth is, boards users would be a lot more clued in on the meaning of the treaty and the underlying truths than the general public would be. So despite how much ahead the No vote is here, I dare say the ignorant masses of FF, FG etc sheep will tell a different story.

eugenedoc1

nil

molloyjh

dardoz wrote: »

the sad truth is, boards users would be a lot more clued in on the meaning of the treaty and the underlying truths than the general public would be. So despite how much ahead the No vote is here, I dare say the ignorant masses of FF, FG etc sheep will tell a different story.

You make it sound like only morons are voting Yes, people who haven't got a clue. The obvious point that you are missing is that the most informed people here (from everything I've seen), including the likes of Scofflaw and sink etc, are very much in favour of a Yes vote. And most of the No camp hee keep presenting points (like the taxation point) that has been refuted and proven to be untrue.

AckwelFoley

dardoz wrote: »

the sad truth is, boards users would be a lot more clued in on the meaning of the treaty and the underlying truths than the general public would be. So despite how much ahead the No vote is here, I dare say the ignorant masses of FF, FG etc sheep will tell a different story.

Ironic, considering they are the ones that get their arses out and vote rather than chatting about it in a pub.

ignorant masses :rolleyes:

Ignorant comment

TelePaul

dardoz wrote: »

the sad truth is, boards users would be a lot more clued in on the meaning of the treaty and the underlying truths than the general public would be. So despite how much ahead the No vote is here, I dare say the ignorant masses of FF, FG etc sheep will tell a different story.

That's bollox.

faceman

A yes from me. Admittedly it was very difficult until recently to get an independent interpretation of the treaty and pro's cons etc.

I find it disturbing that many of the main points from weeks ago for the No campaign related to abortion, neutrality and corporation tax, which if the relevent No campaigners had done the homework, they would learn were a non issue.

Also some of the campaigners for No wanted us to vote No to EU entry and joining the Euro etc yet we have had major benefits as a result

mcaul

Generally from what I've read of the referendum, it seems to be positive - so i be voting yes.

SF's argument that a better deal is possible doesn't wash as when it was negotiated Ireland held the EU presidency and was riding a crest of a wave with NI peace. Also Tony Blair & former french & italian prime ministers were also partial to Ireland.

Now the scene is different. Gordon Brown is probably on way out, so couldn't care less about Ireland, Sarkozy & Bertesloni are not endeared towards Irelandand Merkel couldn't care less either. - Basically, if there's a no vote, a newer deal may be watered down and provide a lot less safety for Ireland than the current proposals.

Another simpler argument, is Europe works together for the common good for all members. The No side seems to suggest that Europe wants to step on Ireland's toes and make Ireland do things other countries wouldn't do - simply not the case. My fear would be that we lose a lot more by voting no than voting yes.

Daftendirekt

mcaul wrote: »

Another simpler argument, is Europe works together for the common good for all members. The No side seems to suggest that Europe wants to step on Ireland's toes and make Ireland do things other countries wouldn't do - simply not the case. My fear would be that we lose a lot more by voting no than voting yes.

+1

Looks like it's gonna be close anyway...

Sleepy

I'm not voting. I don't trust our government's competence and therefore can't rely on their 8 page summarization of a circa 250 page treaty to give me all the information I need to cast a vote. I don't trust Libertas as I've no idea who they are or who's funding them (Matt Cooper wasn't able to get an answer out of their spokesperson so I doubt I can).

Ergo - I need to read the entire treaty (and the treatises it ammends) in order to cast an educated vote.

Again, listening to the Last Word, they had a woman on from a UK organisation who translate legaleze into comprehensible English and campaign for plain language usage in legislation who said it took her a week to get through the treaty and those it's ammending. Given her job, it's fair to assume it would take me longer than a week to get through it (and would make me question how many of the politicians advocating we vote one way or the other are as knowledgeable about it as they should be).

As I don't have a week of free time to get through the text, I'm abstaining as I refuse to cast an uneducated vote.

BJC

Sleepy wrote: »

I'm not voting. I don't trust our government's competence and therefore can't rely on their 8 page summarization of a circa 250 page treaty to give me all the information I need to cast a vote. I don't trust Libertas as I've no idea who they are or who's funding them (Matt Cooper wasn't able to get an answer out of their spokesperson so I doubt I can).

Ergo - I need to read the entire treaty (and the treatises it ammends) in order to cast an educated vote.

Again, listening to the Last Word, they had a woman on from a UK organisation who translate legaleze into comprehensible English and campaign for plain language usage in legislation who said it took her a week to get through the treaty and those it's ammending. Given her job, it's fair to assume it would take me longer than a week to get through it (and would make me question how many of the politicians advocating we vote one way or the other are as knowledgeable about it as they should be).

As I don't have a week of free time to get through the text, I'm abstaining as I refuse to cast an uneducated vote.

Do you not feel that in this particular referendum, a "No" vote would be the better choice if you're not properly versed in the treaty. After all, a "No" vote doesn't change anything and allows all to continue as is.

Cas2007

ooo wait i voted no but im too young to vote. VOTE NO and nothing will change

molloyjh

BJC wrote: »

Do you not feel that in this particular referendum, a "No" vote would be the better choice if you're not properly versed in the treaty. After all, a "No" vote doesn't change anything and allows all to continue as is.

Thats just rubbish BCJ. A No vote is a rejection of the Treaty and if you don't know enough about it how can you reject it? While I don't agree that (s)he needs to read the entire Treaty and affected Treaties to fully understand it (there are good sites that break it down well enough) I do agree with the whole, "If I don't know, I don't know enough to vote" standpoint. Its perfectly reasonable and logical. I would very much advocate that everyone educate themselves and get out to vote, but at the same time I would also advocate that noone vote either way out of ignorance.

molloyjh

Cas2007 wrote: »

ooo wait i voted no but im too young to vote. VOTE NO and nothing will change

Yes because the EU is perfect as it is and can't possibly improve! :rolleyes:

mcaul

Sleepy wrote: »

I'm not voting. I don't trust our government's competence and therefore can't rely on their 8 page summarization of a circa 250 page treaty to give me all the information I need to cast a vote. I don't trust Libertas as I've no idea who they are or who's funding them (Matt Cooper wasn't able to get an answer out of their spokesperson so I doubt I can).
.

Its not just the current government - it was a multi-party group who negotiated the terms of the treaty and they did very well considering Ireland has just 4 million people.

As before, my fear is too many people will take the Sinn Fein line and say a better deal is possible, but the reality is different. All the new accession states are looking for more and if this is renegotiated the chances are Ireland will lose out on some of the more favourable clauses that were agreed when we held the EU presidency.

HydeRoad

molloyjh wrote: »

A No vote is a rejection of the Treaty and if you don't know enough about it how can you reject it? While I don't agree that (s)he needs to read the entire Treaty and affected Treaties to fully understand it (there are good sites that break it down well enough) I do agree with the whole, "If I don't know, I don't know enough to vote" standpoint. Its perfectly reasonable and logical. I would very much advocate that everyone educate themselves and get out to vote, but at the same time I would also advocate that noone vote either way out of ignorance.

But here's another telling point.

Regardless of your views in favour or against the treaty, the fact is that maybe 30% or 40% of the population will not vote, and of those that do, at least half, and probably much more, will vote out of ignorance.

What kind of mandate for a treaty is that, regardless of whether it is good or bad?

I am open to the view that a treaty is necessary. I am open to the view that a lot of this is probably good, and negotiated in general with the best of intentions. I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories, as much as I question the whole direction of politics in general.

But the whole POINT of politics is to work FOR the public and WITH the public. In practice, politics shuts itself into a smoky room, negotiates treaties without reference to the public, and then spins a rhetoric which the public is supposed to meekly submit to, on the basis that politics somehow, through divine intervention, knows what is good for everyone.

Like I say, I am open that much of the treaty is for the best of intentions, but there is no way on Earth any member of Fianna Fáil in particular, or any of the political parties, can sell it to me, because they are totally discredited for a hundred and one different reasons. Because they do seem to promote a sheep like mentality among the public - do what we say and take what we dish out, and do not question.

Arrogance in politics tears asunder all the best of intentions, and leaves too many people cold. This treaty has no mandate unless a majority of the public vote for it with their hearts, and not out of ignorance or sheep like tendencies. And unfortunately, too much damage has been done, too many people are cold to the political process.

molloyjh

HydeRoad wrote: »

But here's another telling point.

Regardless of your views in favour or against the treaty, the fact is that maybe 30% or 40% of the population will not vote, and of those that do, at least half, and probably much more, will vote out of ignorance.

What kind of mandate for a treaty is that, regardless of whether it is good or bad?

I am open to the view that a treaty is necessary. I am open to the view that a lot of this is probably good, and negotiated in general with the best of intentions. I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories, as much as I question the whole direction of politics in general.

But the whole POINT of politics is to work FOR the public and WITH the public. In practice, politics shuts itself into a smoky room, negotiates treaties without reference to the public, and then spins a rhetoric which the public is supposed to meekly submit to, on the basis that politics somehow, through divine intervention, knows what is good for everyone.

Like I say, I am open that much of the treaty is for the best of intentions, but there is no way on Earth any member of Fianna Fáil in particular, or any of the political parties, can sell it to me, because they are totally discredited for a hundred and one different reasons. Because they do seem to promote a sheep like mentality among the public - do what we say and take what we dish out, and do not question.

Arrogance in politics tears asunder all the best of intentions, and leaves too many people cold. This treaty has no mandate unless a majority of the public vote for it with their hearts, and not out of ignorance or sheep like tendencies. And unfortunately, too much damage has been done, too many people are cold to the political process.

Okay there are a few points in here on which I think we agree, but the main thrust of your argument is a bit confusing to me. At what stage do you think the public should get involved in these things? And should we get involved in all matters of national importance? If so where does it end? Budgets, law making, health service reform? Sure Governments would never get anything done then! It is their job to go away and negotiate these things on our behalf. Thats what we elect them to do. And they don't know whats best for us by divine inspiration, but they do make what they deem as the best possible choices after receiving our clearance to do so based on their own judgement.

Zube

Voting Yes, as I have in every Euro-referendum since I got a vote.

Usual coalition of Shinners, neutrality freaks, ultraCatholics, isolationists and stick-it-to-the-Government protest voters on the No side.

VoidStarNull

BJC wrote: »

Do you not feel that in this particular referendum, a "No" vote would be the better choice if you're not properly versed in the treaty. After all, a "No" vote doesn't change anything and allows all to continue as is.

A "No" vote will certainly not lead to things staying as they are. It will force the EU to find an alternative way to reform its institutions. What that way might be is not possible to say right now. Ireland's negotiating position will be weakened by a "NO" at this stage because the view will be taken that Ireland's negotiators cannot deliver acceptance no matter what concessions are granted.

Khannie

Zube wrote: »

Usual coalition of Shinners, neutrality freaks, ultraCatholics, isolationists and stick-it-to-the-Government protest voters on the No side.

Hard not to notice this tbh. I'm still undecided. A few things bothering me at the moment:

1) Various foreign politicians bullying for a Yes. This is really irritating me.
2) No complete document and no attempt to publish one.
3) Vote by the parliament which agreed NOT to abide by our vote.
4) No plan B. Why not?
5) Very poor attempt by the government to educate the public in advance of the treaty.

Having said all of the above, it looks to me very much like the "No" campaign is just full of lies. Also, I'm very aware that the EU does need reform to facilitate the larger number of countries.

oscarBravo

Khannie wrote: »

1) Various foreign politicians bullying for a Yes. This is really irritating me.

Ignore them. While you're at it, ignore the ones arguing (bullying is a very pejorative term) for a No.

2) No complete document and no attempt to publish one.

Not true. The consolidated treaties have been available for months.

3) Vote by the parliament which agreed NOT to abide by our vote.

Done to death. Stunt amendment; an affront to parliamentary procedure.

4) No plan B. Why not?

Lisbon is plan B.

5) Very poor attempt by the government to educate the public in advance of the treaty.

No argument there.

molloyjh

Khannie wrote: »

Hard not to notice this tbh. I'm still undecided. A few things bothering me at the moment:

1) Various foreign politicians bullying for a Yes. This is really irritating me.
2) No complete document and no attempt to publish one.
3) Vote by the parliament which agreed NOT to abide by our vote.
4) No plan B. Why not?
5) Very poor attempt by the government to educate the public in advance of the treaty.

Having said all of the above, it looks to me very much like the "No" campaign is just full of lies. Also, I'm very aware that the EU does need reform to facilitate the larger number of countries.

1. I don't like that wither but I'm refusing to let it impact how I vote. Let them say what they will, and then lets vote based on the Treaty alone.

2. The Referendum Commission sent a doc to each and every registered voter in the country that covered the Treaty.

3. To my knowledge this didn't happen, in the way in which it has been put across at least. Either way if it did it did so with the priviso that we are not included.

4. No Plan B, because this is Plan B. It has been ratified by pretty much everyone and we have been given a really good deal with it all things considered. There are no more concessions thy can give u, so if we say no to this the general attitude will be that they were willing to give us as much as they possibly could and we still weren't happy. We are not the centre of the EU and can't expect to get what we want when we want it all the time like some spoilt child (which is exactly what some of the No camp people sound like).

5. Whole-heartedly agree. However just as in point 1 I'm not going to let their failure in this regard impact on the issue at hand.

My advice is to vote yes as there are numerous reasons that we should (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055310477) and because the No camp is full of bull-crap for the most part.

HydeRoad

molloyjh wrote: »

Okay there are a few points in here on which I think we agree, but the main thrust of your argument is a bit confusing to me. At what stage do you think the public should get involved in these things? And should we get involved in all matters of national importance? If so where does it end? Budgets, law making, health service reform? Sure Governments would never get anything done then! It is their job to go away and negotiate these things on our behalf. Thats what we elect them to do. And they don't know whats best for us by divine inspiration, but they do make what they deem as the best possible choices after receiving our clearance to do so based on their own judgement.

Aha, they are elected to represent us and work on our behalf. Now allowing for not pleasing all the people all the time, why is there constant uproar about health, education, transport, jobs, a myriad of issues that directly affect ordinary people on a daily basis? Governments are elected by the people to organise these things, and end up catering to vested interests more often than not. Our own government of the past ten years has done so glutinously, to the expense of ordinary people who cannot afford a home to live in.

Look across Europe. Riots in France over jobs and immigration. Spanish truckers blockading that country over the cost of fuel. Back home, a country riven by argument over whether we should have a public health service, or privatise everything. What will the treaty do towards the issues that really affect people? Spell that out, and people might have a genuine reason for voting YES. If there is to be a YES vote, let it be because people believe in the substance of it, not because they are spun a load of horror stories on either side of the debate.

nag

oscarBravo wrote: »

Because it's a single quote taken out of context from an English translation of a French source.

Well if that's the case then point me to a source which translated it correctly and explains the context from which it was taken.

oscarBravo wrote: »

And round and round and round and round we go, with the same old tired crap.

This has been addressed approximately four hundred million times already on this forum alone.

Well forgive me for not reading every single thread on the Treaty so I know what has been addressed and what hasn't.
Instead of exaggerating from your high-horse, why don't you point me to where this has been addressed, adequately and I will gladly read it.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I strongly recommend you take your own advice.

Well that's not insulting in the slightest, especially coming from someone who seems to be so highly regarded here.
Never did I say that I was voting no based ONLY on the points I made. Of course I have read up on the Treaty and I've listened to both sides of the debate and I have made an informed decision as best I can.

molloyjh

HydeRoad wrote: »

Aha, they are elected to represent us and work on our behalf. Now allowing for not pleasing all the people all the time, why is there constant uproar about health, education, transport, jobs, a myriad of issues that directly affect ordinary people on a daily basis? Governments are elected by the people to organise these things, and end up catering to vested interests more often than not. Our own government of the past ten years has done so glutinously, to the expense of ordinary people who cannot afford a home to live in.

Look across Europe. Riots in France over jobs and immigration. Spanish truckers blockading that country over the cost of fuel. Back home, a country riven by argument over whether we should have a public health service, or privatise everything. What will the treaty do towards the issues that really affect people? Spell that out, and people might have a genuine reason for voting YES. If there is to be a YES vote, let it be because people believe in the substance of it, not because they are spun a load of horror stories on either side of the debate.

The Treaty is not meant to do anything for many domestic issues like health service. Thatis a problem for our Dail and not for the EU. The cost of fuel is something that nobody can really do anything about for the moment due to demand and instability in the Middle East. That is not something the EU could ever fix. Their commitment, however, to the global warming issue will lead down the path of renewable energy sources which would ultimately help this issue. Most of the issues that affect people day to day are still going to be dealt with at a national level, not an EU level.

However there are benefits (I've lost count the number of times I've referenced this post today!): http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055310477