Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

fligedlyflick

Eliza Wide Radiology wrote: »

By stating lies like this, you have secured votes of the unemployed, their parents, children friends and other family members. I am unemployed and I voted NO!

I hope I am wrong, but I have a very very bad feeling about this whole thing. Blair going for EU president? Are we insane? Who would elect americas pupet to lead us? There would be all out war on americas enemies all in the name of "terror". Makes my blood boil.

these were the finer points conveniently removed from debate by the yes camp infiltrated so-called impartial referendum commission.
anybody asking questions was accused of scaremongering and been fed this nonsense that lisbon was solely about trade and economics, the yes side will deny any link between what the dutch and the french rejected and what we rejected last year

marco_polo

presumeably this ban would include rubbish like the suggestion that the president of the council could lead us into a war?

prinz

fligedlyflick wrote: »

blah blah blah?.
how commendable to see you at least stay true to your beliefs and counter any explanation by an irish citizen with such a puerile condescending nature.
did you rub your hands in glee when cowen announced the no vote as blah blah blah?

You see despite whining on about the death of democracy this weekend you still have trouble with our actual history. Amendments have been put before the people before, we voted them down, they are put before the people again, we vote to accept. it has happened before, it will happen again. It's called democracy in action. You're not giving an explanations to anything other than the fact that you won't face the actual history of constitutional amendments in this country. You don't seem capable of looking at this without resorting to a Nice/Lisbon false argument.

prinz

fligedlyflick wrote: »

.. the yes side will deny any link between what the dutch and the french rejected and what we rejected last year

Aren't you forgetting about two countries or do the citizens of Spain and Luxembourg not count? Why is it some votes can be erased from popular memory so easily...could it be that you have no interest in democracy at all?

prinz

Eliza Wide Radiology wrote: »

Why are these scum of the earth allowed to lie and take advantage of the vunerable. Of course they are going to state that a yes vote will give us jobs in this time of crisis. By stating lies like this, you have secured votes of the unemployed, their parents, children friends and other family members. I am unemployed and I voted NO!

Well obviously they didn't do a very good job, or else you just consider yourself way above the majority of the electorate.... quite a bold statement to make.

Eliza Wide Radiology wrote: »

I hope I am wrong, but I have a very very bad feeling about this whole thing. Blair going for EU president? Are we insane? Who would elect americas pupet to lead us? There would be all out war on americas enemies all in the name of "terror". Makes my blood boil.

Why, when you have something corrected on one thread do people go to another thread and repeat the same nonsense? . Could it be they're just not interested in actually facing up to the facts..

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

prinz wrote: »

Well obviously they didn't do a very good job, or else you just consider yourself way above the majority of the electorate.... quite a bold statement to make.



Why, when you have something corrected on one thread do people go to another thread and repeat the same nonsense? . Could it be they're just not interested in actually facing up to the facts..

I didn't read every single thread in this forum. I am very interested in the facts, maybe you could set me straight

prinz

Eliza Wide Radiology wrote: »

I didn't read every single thread in this forum. I am very interested in the facts, maybe you could set me straight

You mean you don't read threads that you actually post on?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62389757&postcount=17

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

I didn't read your reply, thanks for the link

Mr. SS

thank god we voted yes, i was getting worried id have to emigrate because this this place would have turned into a dustbowl. we can now get on with the process of a more democratic and representativee europe

prinz

Eliza Wide Radiology wrote: »

I didn't read your reply, thanks for the link

In that case apologies It's being hyped up beyond belief though. It's not a new role, just a change in time of office and method of selection. At present the President of the Council is rotated every 6 months amongst the heads of government of the EU countries, right now the President of the Council is the Prime Minister of Sweden. Bertie was President of the Council at one stage, Blair was President of the Council twice while he was PM. The system is just changing whereby under Lisbon the President of the Council wil be elected, and will serve a term of 2.5 years. They won't be current heads of any country, so that way they can focus on presiding over the council, and it also means that every six months the focus won't change and put everything back to square one. The President of the Council has no real powers, but simply chairs the meetings of the Councils and represents the public face of the Council itself, so that it can speak as a single voice.

IMO the new system has two advantages

1. Somebody competent to get the job will get it,not simply because it was their 'turn' so to speak.

2. Perhaps people will pay more attention to the person/job.

Personally I think there are better candidates out there than Tony Blair, but it's not a President the way parts of the media are building it up to be. Basically the job is spokesman for the Council and that's it really.

fligedlyflick

prinz wrote: »

Aren't you forgetting about two countries or do the citizens of Spain and Luxembourg not count? Why is it some votes can be erased from popular memory so easily...could it be that you have no interest in democracy at all?

they voted, their vote was accepted, then it was rejected by the french an dutch which meant it was a dead duck, democracy at work there. fair enough. then.....
Retitled to a treaty instead of constitution to disable any need for referendum as the powers that be knew it would be rejected again, we vote no, bullied bribed and coerced into re-voting with promises of jobs and threats of doom if we dared say no again. democracy? hardly.
are'nt you forgetting the votes the last time? or do they not count?

you have some nerve to accuse me of selective memory

fligedlyflick

Mr. SS wrote: »

thank god we voted yes, i was getting worried id have to emigrate because this this place would have turned into a dustbowl. we can now get on with the process of a more democratic and representativee europe

they should have held this re-vote on halloween night

fligedlyflick

prinz wrote: »

You see despite whining on about the death of democracy this weekend you still have trouble with our actual history. Amendments have been put before the people before,

won't face the actual history of constitutional amendments in this country. You don't seem capable of looking at this without resorting to a Nice/Lisbon false argument.

Referendums have taken place on a total of 30 proposals to amend the Constitution. 22 have been approved and 8 have been rejected. The largest majority was for the Adoption Referendum in 1979 when a huge 99% of the voters were in favour. The lowest majority in favour was in the Divorce Referendum in 1995 with 50.28% Yes, followed by Cabinet Confidentiality with only 52.65% in favour. The 1992 Right to Life Referendum was defeated by the largest majority (65.4% against). The largest turnout for a Referendum was in 1972 (70.9%) but this was less than turned out for the Plebiscite on the Draft Constitution in 1937 (75.8%). This Plebiscite also had the largest number of spoilt votes (10%). The 7.65% spoilt votes in the Local Government referendum in 1999 was the highest since 1937. The least turnout was for the Seanad Referendum in 1978 when only 28.6% of the electorate voted. Referendums on both the Nice Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty were voted on twice after being rejected initially - however, the issues of the voting system, abortion and divorce have each been subject to more than one referendum following No votes.

meditraitor

fligedlyflick wrote: »

Referendums have taken place on a total of 30 proposals to amend the Constitution. 22 have been approved and 8 have been rejected. The largest majority was for the Adoption Referendum in 1979 when a huge 99% of the voters were in favour. The lowest majority in favour was in the Divorce Referendum in 1995 with 50.28% Yes, followed by Cabinet Confidentiality with only 52.65% in favour. The 1992 Right to Life Referendum was defeated by the largest majority (65.4% against). The largest turnout for a Referendum was in 1972 (70.9%) but this was less than turned out for the Plebiscite on the Draft Constitution in 1937 (75.8%). This Plebiscite also had the largest number of spoilt votes (10%). The 7.65% spoilt votes in the Local Government referendum in 1999 was the highest since 1937. The least turnout was for the Seanad Referendum in 1978 when only 28.6% of the electorate voted. Referendums on both the Nice Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty were voted on twice after being rejected initially - however, the issues of the voting system, abortion and divorce have each been subject to more than one referendum following No votes.

+
More people voted YES in this referendum than any other

rumour

prinz wrote: »

You see despite whining on about the death of democracy this weekend you still have trouble with our actual history. Amendments have been put before the people before, we voted them down, they are put before the people again, we vote to accept. it has happened before, it will happen again. It's called democracy in action. You're not giving an explanations to anything other than the fact that you won't face the actual history of constitutional amendments in this country. You don't seem capable of looking at this without resorting to a Nice/Lisbon false argument.

Which referendum did we run twice that bestowed an obligation as opposed to a freedom on the individual?

Just curious as in my obvious ignorance I cannot seem to find an answer.

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

Which referendum did we run twice that bestowed an obligation as opposed to a freedom on the individual?

Just curious as in my obvious ignorance I cannot seem to find an answer.

Nice

And who decided that "the bestowing of an obligation" is the difference between it being fine to run a second referendum again and it being anti-democratic? Why does that make all the difference?

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Nice

And who decided that "the bestowing of an obligation" is the difference between it being fine to run a second referendum again and it being anti-democratic? Why does that make all the difference?

I certainly am not making the decision, but it is something I've been curious about. Setting Lisbon aside as it is a fait accompli now I am just going to educate myself for the future.

Convincing someone that they must give up something is much more difficult than convincing them to give something and I do see an obvious distinction. I was just wondering how many times we voted twice on something where as an individual we had to give up something.

It is perhaps now not for this thread. Consider on an individual level (nothing to do with Lisbon) when you have a choice of YES or NO, if you say NO you always have the freedom to say YES in the future. IF you say YES do you have the freedom to say NO?

Each person I believe rationalises in this simplistic manner. What can change this? I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that 'fear' is the primary motivator. I think everyone will agree it motivated the results of the first referendum and was certainly an influencing part of the second referendum.

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

I certainly am not making the decision, but it is something I've been curious about. Setting Lisbon aside as it is a fait accompli now I am just going to educate myself for the future.

Convincing someone that they must give up something is much more difficult than convincing them to give something and I do see an obvious distinction. I was just wondering how many times we voted twice on something where as an individual we had to give up something.

It is perhaps now not for this thread. Consider on an individual level (nothing to do with Lisbon) when you have a choice of YES or NO, if you say NO you always have the freedom to say YES in the future. IF you say YES do you have the freedom to say NO?

Each person I believe rationalises in this simplistic manner. What can change this? I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that 'fear' is the primary motivator. I think everyone will agree it motivated the results of the first referendum and was certainly an influencing part of the second referendum.

Firstly both Ireland and the EU gained in Lisbon as well as giving up some vetoes. What we lost in blocking power we gained in amending power. Just as we can't block some changes we don't want, others can't block changes that we want.

When we voted on abortion and divorce, the people who voted no lost their right to live in a country which didn't allow those things, a right that was very important to many.

Also, all you have to do to get rid of Lisbon is to vote in a Sinn Fein government who will call a referendum on it. We have the right to remove that provision from our constitution, it's just a bit of a procedural mess because we'll be operating under different rules to everyone else. But the EU already has several different tiers of involvement so I'm sure we could come to some arrangement.

marco_polo

rumour wrote: »

I certainly am not making the decision, but it is something I've been curious about. Setting Lisbon aside as it is a fait accompli now I am just going to educate myself for the future.

Convincing someone that they must give up something is much more difficult than convincing them to give something and I do see an obvious distinction. I was just wondering how many times we voted twice on something where as an individual we had to give up something.

It is perhaps now not for this thread. Consider on an individual level (nothing to do with Lisbon) when you have a choice of YES or NO, if you say NO you always have the freedom to say YES in the future. IF you say YES do you have the freedom to say NO?

Each person I believe rationalises in this simplistic manner. What can change this? I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that 'fear' is the primary motivator. I think everyone will agree it motivated the results of the first referendum and was certainly an influencing part of the second referendum.

I got offered a ticket for the 2009 Heineken cup final and decided to turn it down. By your logic I can always change my mind and decide to go at some point in the future yes?

fligedlyflick

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Just as we can't block some changes we don't want, others can't block changes that we want.

that we want, hmmmmm?
you see, changes we want have a very weak chance of being implemented while changes we don't want can go ahead freely without any legal recourse.

that is as defining a statement about brussels since lenihan admitted to the lies about yes for jobs

Scofflaw

fligedlyflick wrote: »

that we want, hmmmmm?
you see, changes we want have a very weak chance of being implemented while changes we don't want can go ahead freely without any legal recourse.

that is as defining a statement about brussels since lenihan admitted to the lies about yes for jobs

Well, this is the bit where you're cordially invited to demonstrate occasions on which this has been anything remotely resembling the truth.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Elmo

fligedlyflick wrote: »

that is as defining a statement about brussels since lenihan admitted to the lies about yes for jobs

FF I don't think put posters up stating Yes for Jobs ????

I hear that the commissioner for every country is only their until 2012, I didn't think this was the case as I say it wasn't the reason I voted no, the Commissioner has nothing to do with Ireland, however I feel FG seem to think it has. Anyway can we confirm that each country gets a commissioner until at least the next treaty?

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Firstly both Ireland and the EU gained in Lisbon as well as giving up some vetoes. What we lost in blocking power we gained in amending power. Just as we can't block some changes we don't want, others can't block changes that we want.

When we voted on abortion and divorce, the people who voted no lost their right to live in a country which didn't allow those things, a right that was very important to many.

Also, all you have to do to get rid of Lisbon is to vote in a Sinn Fein government who will call a referendum on it. We have the right to remove that provision from our constitution, it's just a bit of a procedural mess because we'll be operating under different rules to everyone else. But the EU already has several different tiers of involvement so I'm sure we could come to some arrangement.

:mad: I'm not arguing about Lisbon..its done

Each question you put infront of someone that demands a yes or no answer still faces this outcome. If I say no I can say yes in the future. If I say yes will I ever be able to say no. Your answer proves something of what I am saying, that does not make you wrong, you have described numerous 'if' scenarios to reverse a yes decision. If my answer was no I would not have to do that. I acknowledge that change in any form is difficult to achieve.

For me this is especially the case when advocating a YES to change, any change. If the outcome bestows an obligation(or the individual looses a freedom) it is difficult to advocate, if it bestows a freedom it is much easier to advocate.

What I now consider is that the mangement of fear influences this rationale no matter what the circumstances.

For example to get someone to change any change do you think it is easier to persuade them of the benefits or scare them out of inaction.

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

that we want, hmmmmm?
you see, changes we want have a very weak chance of being implemented while changes we don't want can go ahead freely without any legal recourse.

that is as defining a statement about brussels since lenihan admitted to the lies about yes for jobs

In what way do we have a very weak chance? If Germany wants to make a change they have to get 14 countries to agree to it and if we want a change we also have to get 14 countries to agree. If the "big countries" wanted to force something on the "small countries", that would involve, at a minimum:

Germany (17%), The UK (12%), France (12%), Spain (8%), Poland (7%), Italy (12%), Romania (4%), The Netherlands (3%), Greece (2%), Portugal (2%), Belgium (2%), Czech Republic (2%), Hungary (2%), Sweden (1.8%) and Austria (1.8%) all to agree and they represent 88.6% of the EU population. They meet the population requirement of 65% after 6 countries but they still need to get a minimum of 15 to make a change.

Swap any country out of that list, including the top 4, and stick Ireland in instead and we're getting something that the big boys don't want. So how exactly is our situation very weak compared to anyone else?

rumour

marco_polo wrote: »

I got offered a ticket for the 2009 Heineken cup final and decided to turn it down. By your logic I can always change my mind and decide to go at some point in the future yes?

If you decide No to a ticket you will have the opportunity to say YES to a ticket in the future.

If you decide YES to a ticket you will not have the choice to make a decision again because you have already decided.

Did you make a choice or decision or did you not?

fligedlyflick

Elmo wrote: »

FF I don't think put posters up stating Yes for Jobs ????

are you impaired in the vision section of the face?

Scofflaw

Elmo wrote: »

FF I don't think put posters up stating Yes for Jobs ????

I hear that the commissioner for every country is only their until 2012, I didn't think this was the case as I say it wasn't the reason I voted no, the Commissioner has nothing to do with Ireland, however I feel FG seem to think it has. Anyway can we confirm that each country gets a commissioner until at least the next treaty?

The 2009-2014 Commission was intended, under the original Lisbon arrangements, to be a full Commission - the 2014 Commission was to be the first reduced Commission. The European Council Decision will apply to the 2014 Commission and on - unless the Decision is reversed by unanimity through the European Council or a new Treaty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

fligedlyflick

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, this is the bit where you're cordially invited to demonstrate occasions on which this has been anything remotely resembling the truth.

cordially,
Scofflaw

the yes for jobs nonsense or the future EU where these promises will fail to materialize?
if it's the 2nd bit you will have to wait until my "told you so" comments.

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

For example to get someone to change any change do you think it is easier to persuade them of the benefits or scare them out of inaction.

Yes it's always easier to appeal to fear than rationality.

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

If you decide No to a ticket you will have the opportunity to say YES to a ticket in the future.

That's not necessarily true at all. If I have one spare ticket, offer it to you, and you say No, I'm not going to hang on to it just in case you change your mind.

rumour wrote: »

If you decide YES to a ticket you will not have the choice to make a decision again because you have already decided.

Also not necessarily true - if you accept the ticket you could call me back and reverse your decision, for at least as long as I can usefully dispose of the ticket elsewhere.

cordially,
Scofflaw