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

fligedlyflick

ei.sdraob wrote: »

lets not forget that

Declan Ganley from the NO side wants a United States of Europe

?

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

?

http://federalunion.org.uk/quotebank/?p=76

“The EU has served the people of Europe well. It is abundantly apparent that it is capable of much more, which is why we must jealously guard it from those that would try to snatch its levers from us. A United Europe could provide for European peace, prosperity, strength, quality of life, and the ability to build not just a better Europe but a better and safer world. A United States of Europe, structured properly, could benefit Europeans and the world.”

“A federal Europe is a pretty good idea, if it possessed an accountable administration with a clear European identity and position on the world stage; had vested in it only those key disciplines that are best and most efficiently managed on a European level; embraced Europe’s diversity; and devolved as many matters as possible to Europe’s regions.”

Jackob

Hear Hear!!!

fligedlyflick

the cross border fuel smuggling LIE, arose one day when a local fianna fail rep called to my mothers to explain the treaty, he threw this wee nugget about fuel smuggling into the conversation, when i asked him about it, he shuffled his feet and mumbled something about interpol, now excuse me for being cynical, but that lone sentence about fuel smuggling reinforced my belief that career politicians who are pushing the yes vote have no interest in peoples queries or concerns, choosing to play on fears,
the cross border nonsense is on a par with "yes for jobs", quite ironic fianna fail would use that statement.
may i just point out that i am i no way affiliated with any of the no camps and have not used them as sources of information, i used the referendum comissions hotline to questions where they detailed and answered my queries, from them i managed to forge my own opinion.
the yes camps poster campaign firmly cemented them, the no camps posters are irrelevant to me, they don't contain promises, they utilize confusion.

and sam, sorry for the liar retort, i'm still waiting on my morning coffee.

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

the cross border fuel smuggling LIE, arose one day when a local fianna fail rep called to my mothers to explain the treaty, he threw this wee nugget about fuel smuggling into the conversation, when i asked him about it, he shuffled his feet and mumbled something about interpol, now excuse me for being cynical, but that lone sentence about fuel smuggling reinforced my belief that career politicians who are pushing the yes vote have no interest in peoples queries or concerns, choosing to play on fears,
the cross border nonsense is on a par with "yes for jobs", quite ironic fianna fail would use that statement.

You won't hear me defending career politicians but this treaty is not about them. Will you vote no on the upcoming children's rights referendum because FF wants a yes?

fligedlyflick

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Will you vote no on the upcoming children's rights referendum because FF wants a yes?

eh?
if i was to counteract everything fianna fail wanted me to do, i would'nt pay tax, i would'nt pay my phone/esb whatever bill, i'm not a total rebel, of course i'd vote yes on matters which are important and essential. therefore i shall vote no on lisbon 2, (just when you thought it was safe to go into the polling booth)
and please clarify that this treaty is not a vote on irelands prosperity through EU membership or a vote on leaving, it's a vote on irelands future prosperity in europe, something a yes vote will not accomodate. contrary to pat cox and gay mithchells doom prophecies

PopeBuckfastXVI

fligedlyflick wrote: »

eh?
if i was to counteract everything fianna fail wanted me to do, i would'nt pay tax, i would'nt pay my phone/esb whatever bill, i'm not a total rebel, of course i'd vote yes on matters which are important and essential. therefore i shall vote no on lisbon 2, (just when you thought it was safe to go into the polling booth)
and please clarify that this treaty is not a vote on irelands prosperity through EU membership or a vote on leaving, it's a vote on irelands future prosperity in europe, something a yes vote will not accomodate. contrary to pat cox and gay mithchells doom prophecies

Actually it's a vote on whether you want to:

1. Reform the isntitutions of the EU in the sustainable way Lisbon sets out.
2. Move more areas to QMV to allow greater scope for decision making without being held back by one country (we have 26 chances of getting a veto used against us, compared to 1 of using it, by the way).
3. Increase EU competence in areas like Tourism, Sport, Energy, Space etc.
4. Incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into EU law in order to prevent EU law from breaching those rights.

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

eh?
if i was to counteract everything fianna fail wanted me to do, i would'nt pay tax, i would'nt pay my phone/esb whatever bill, i'm not a total rebel, of course i'd vote yes on matters which are important and essential.

Exactly!!! The Lisbon treaty has no more to do with Fianna Fail than the children's rights referendum. This is not their treaty, it's about the relationship between the EU and Ireland. That confusion you got when I mentioned the children's rights referendum, that's the same confusion you should get when it's suggested that the uselessness of Fianna Fail means you should vote no to Lisbon.

The Lisbon treaty is important and essential. If it wasn't they wouldn't have spent 5 years and millions writing it. A situation where a union of 27 is operating under rules designed for a union of 15 cannot continue.

fligedlyflick wrote: »

therefore i shall vote no on lisbon 2, (just when you thought it was safe to go into the polling booth)
and please clarify that this treaty is not a vote on irelands prosperity through EU membership or a vote on leaving, it's a vote on irelands future prosperity in europe, something a yes vote will not accomodate. contrary to pat cox and gay mithchells doom prophecies

It's not a vote on EU membership, no, but it can have an effect on the economy. It's not just government scaremongering, 90% of businesses, 91% of economists and the majority of trade unions think it will hellp the economy, they can't all have something to gain by pretending it will help. Voting yes signals that we are pro-EU and will continue to be so going into the future where voting no for a third time makes us look isolationist and contrary. Our membership of the EU is a major factor in the decision of businesses to locate here and we will be sending a signal that we're not happy with the EU and may not go along with it as it makes future changes. Far from being kicked out, it makes it look like we might pull ourselves out. We won't but that doesn't stop a perception building.

It's not a reason to vote yes on its own, it's a response to the "if you don't know vote no" argument. People have this idea that a no vote is consequence free and safe but its not. It will damage Ireland's reputation, especially voting no because of a pack of lies. In the absence of a decent true reason to vote no, that and the fact that 26 other nations have signalled they want this treaty is enough reason to vote yes imo. If you want to go against an organisation that has been so incredibly good to Ireland you have to give a good reason why

squod

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

1. Reform the isntitutions of the EU in the sustainable way Lisbon sets out.
2. Move more areas to QMV to allow greater scope for decision making without being held back by one country (we have 26 chances of getting a veto used against us, compared to 1 of using it, by the way).

Makes it easier for countries to operate voting packs and agreements, since all you will have to do is wait for like minded states to vote along with you.

A practice which is unfair and undemocratic. Simple as.

fligedlyflick

squod wrote: »

Makes it easier for countries to operate voting packs and agreements, since all you will have to do is wait for like minded states to vote along with you.

A practice which is unfair and undemocratic. Simple as.

exactly, allegiances change between countries, how for instance, is fishing and the myriad of separate debates regarding EU protocol suitable for a separate discussion, going to sway preference from a country like switzerland or the czech republic?

"What need we fear who knows it,
When none can call our power to account?"
Lady Macbeth (Macbeth, Act V Scene 1)

PopeBuckfastXVI

squod wrote: »

Makes it easier for countries to operate voting packs and agreements, since all you will have to do is wait for like minded states to vote along with you.

A practice which is unfair and undemocratic. Simple as.

Description of a democratic society:
Makes it easier for people to operate voting packs and agreements, since all you will have to do is wait for like minded people to vote along with you.

A practice which is unfair and undemocratic. Simple as.

anything wrong with the above?

Sam Vimes

squod wrote: »

Makes it easier for countries to operate voting packs and agreements, since all you will have to do is wait for like minded states to vote along with you.

A practice which is unfair and undemocratic. Simple as.

Yes and in a referendum all you have to do is wait for like minded people to vote along with you. How undemocratic :mad: :rolleyes:

Also, a referendum requires only 50% of "like minded" people, the EU requires 55% of member states and 65% of the population

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

exactly, allegiances change between countries, how for instance, is fishing and the myriad of separate debates regarding EU protocol suitable for a separate discussion, going to sway preference from a country like switzerland or the czech republic?

"What need we fear who knows it,
When none can call our power to account?"
Lady Macbeth (Macbeth, Act V Scene 1)

Remember that they have to get 15 countries to vote a certain way. Allegiances change within countries to so any argument against this is against democracy in general.

Also Switzerland isn't in the EU but that's irrelevant

fligedlyflick

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes and in a referendum all you have to do is wait for like minded people to vote along with you. How undemocratic :mad: :rolleyes:

Also, a referendum requires only 50% of "like minded" people, the EU requires 55% of member states and 65% of the population

so, a sortition democracy is what you favour within europe?

switzerland? my apologies, maybe i meant slovakia

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

so, a sortition democracy is what you favour within europe?

Do you mean a system where everyone directly votes on everything and there are no representatives? No that would be a terrible system for a variety of reasons, mostly because it would be so open to abuse. I was just pointing that that what he called undemocratic, a system where "all you will have to do is wait for like minded states to vote along with you" is the definition of democracy, except using states instead of people

fligedlyflick wrote: »

switzerland? my apologies, maybe i meant slovakia

I think Switzerland has something like that alright

PopeBuckfastXVI

A veto system is wholly undemocratic, as it allows a minority of one to dictate to the majority.

QMV is less democratic than a straight population vote, but is more democratic than a veto system.

It seems QMV is the preferred balance between full democracy (where the population requirement would be the only one) and the consideration of smaller nations.

To call QMV undemocratic when compared to a Veto System is a bastardisation of the concept of democracy.

fligedlyflick

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

To call QMV undemocratic when compared to a Veto System is a bastardisation of the concept of democracy.

as is ignoring a persons vote and bully a re-vote on the exact same topic.
pedantic? yes, but the truth remains

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

as is ignoring a persons vote and bully a re-vote on the exact same topic.
pedantic? yes, but the truth remains

If the vote was ignored Lisbon would currently be ratified but it's not.

The Irish people were asked why they voted no and in overwhelming numbers they said it was because of the issues of taxation, abortion, conscription and neutrality and the loss of a commissioner. The commissioner issue has been resolved and we have legally binding guarantees that the rest of those issues rest safely with the Irish people so, now that all of those issues have been addressed, and the 42% of people who voted no due to lack of understanding (the biggest reason by far) have had two years to learn about the treaty, what's so wrong with asking people if they've changed their minds? If they haven't they can just vote no again but if their issues have been addressed I don't see why they wouldn't

Also, if someone voted on those issues that weren't in the treaty in an attempt to prevent something that was never going to happen, why does it matter if the text of the treaty is the same? There was nothing that could possibly be changed in the treaty to address those issues. Would you prefer them to randomly change a few articles just to make it look like they'd done something?


Also, we had two divorce referendums in Ireland, the first of which was voted down massively and the second passed with 50.28%. Was the second vote undemocratic bullying and ignoring the will of the people?

fligedlyflick

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Would you prefer them to randomly change a few articles just to make it look like they'd done something?

thats exactly what they done

ArmaniJeanss

Gambolling update.

http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/lisbon-treaty-referendum/win-market
Powers 1/25 Yes, 8/1 No. Ladbrokes 1/20 Yes, 7/1 No.

So ignoring overround the bookies expect it to be Yes about 92% of the time from here. Trend is towards Yes, it was 1/8 Yes , 4/1 No in Powers about a month ago.

At about the same stage in the June08 Vote (7 days to polling) it was 8/11 Yes, Evens No with a huge trend towards No having developed over the previous week.

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

thats exactly what they done

No they didn't and they didn't claim to either. Everyone acknowledges the text is the same. To put it bluntly, the Irish people voted no because of a determined campaign of lies. We voted no because of issues that were not in the treaty. There is nothing that could have possibly changed in the treaty to address those issues so we got legally binding guarantees that the claims about our tax, abortion, conscription and neutrality were not true.

Again, given the fact that people voted no because of issues that were not in the treaty, why does it matter that it's the same treaty? We didn't tell them which parts of the treaty we wanted changed......

It's like saying that The Da vinci Code is a terrible book because you thought Harry Potter was awful

squod

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Description of a democratic society:
Makes it easier for people to operate voting packs and agreements, since all you will have to do is wait for like minded people to vote along with you.

A practice which is unfair and undemocratic. Simple as.

anything wrong with the above?

So you want an unfair and undemocratic Europe. Then that's your opinion.
You can vote yes so.

PopeBuckfastXVI

fligedlyflick wrote: »

as is ignoring a persons vote and bully a re-vote on the exact same topic.
pedantic? yes, but the truth remains

Pedantic? Perhaps, factual, no.

According to the Irish Supreme Court:

The State’s argument the people could be asked more than once to vote on an issue was “compelling” because, if the people could decide a matter only once, that would effectively disenfranchise people in the future from expressing their view.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0903/breaking62.htm

ei.sdraob

squod wrote: »

So you want an unfair and undemocratic Europe. Then that's your opinion.
You can vote yes so.

Do you want Ireland to have less of a voice in Europe?

PopeBuckfastXVI

squod wrote: »

So you want an unfair and undemocratic Europe. Then that's your opinion.
You can vote yes so.

Where have I said that. You called a voting system where you build a majority of like minded participants undemocratic.

I merely pointed out you are completely ignoring the meaning of the word and using it as a catch all platitude which in your view means 'something I disagree with'. You're abusing the English language, and seem happy to do so. Good luck to you.

fligedlyflick

on an entirely different note, how can i change my display name on this,
or is their a provision in the treaty which forbids me doing so?

fligedlyflick was composed under inebriation

PopeBuckfastXVI

fligedlyflick wrote: »

on an entirely different note, how can i change my display name on this,
or is their a provision in the treaty which forbids me doing so?

fligedlyflick was composed under inebriation

See the help desk:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=30

meglome

fligedlyflick wrote: »

thats exactly what they done

Why would you change a treaty when the majority of issues a country has with that treaty are not in it? How do you really fix something that isn't there?

fligedlyflick

cheers pope,
i have to make a cheque payable to the name change facility.
damn capitalists.

Lionsden

meglome wrote: »

Why would you change a treaty when the majority of issues a country has with that treaty are not in it? How do you really fix something that isn't there?

....and why has our government claimed that after the last vote on Lisbon, they did exactly that, they went off and got it fixed!.....obviously not.