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

squod

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

No, oh no. Very easy to make these assumptions. The EU will require a majority of 55% of the participants who are voting at that time. Not overall.

You would have to be extra-ordinarily lucky, or have alot to bargain with to get your say on many issues. It strikes me that in this instance Ireland wouldn't have much of a say really.

Sam Vimes

squod wrote: »

No, oh no. Very easy to make these assumptions. The EU will require a majority of 55% of the participants who are voting at that time. Not overall.

Eh? So if a country chooses not to vote their vote isn't counted? What's your point?
Remember this is the country requirement I'm talking about, not the population requirement.

squod wrote: »

You would have to be extra-ordinarily lucky, or have alot to bargain with to get your say on many issues. It strikes me that in this instance Ireland wouldn't have much of a say really.

They've been saying that since 1973 but that particular piece of scaremongering has yet to materialise. Look at the claims from the Maastricht referendum, bottom right specifically:
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_ZKepX8VopRQ/SkqHGwCTAAI/AAAAAAAAAc8/EMzgh3Rs0bg/s800/mastr2.jpg

squod

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

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).

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.

[quote=Sam Vimes;62257064

They've been saying that since 1973 but that particular piece of scaremongering has yet to materialise. Look at the claims from the Maastricht referendum, bottom right specifically:
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_ZKepX8VopRQ/SkqHGwCTAAI/AAAAAAAAAc8/EMzgh3Rs0bg/s800/mastr2.jpg[/quote]


I take your point. However I'm saying that if you want your democratic process to more resemble trade negotiations than fine. Vote yes.

I like my democracies democratic, balanced and fair. Without the need to 'hustle' to be heard. The system we have is fine for now.

someoneok

I hope that most are aware that if Lisbon is voted yes that we will never have a referendum ever again on any issues that arise after we become federalised. Also worryingly enough this treaty is self amending which means these Eurocrats can change whatever they like without the consent of the peoples of Europe. Sounds like a dictatorship to me. Just look at the poor American model now! Power must be dispersed and not centralised, Many commentators in the passed have warned us of the dangers of centralised power ie. De Valera.

Our commissioner will be chosen for us as well.The yes side admits, yes we get to keep it, but never comment on the fact that the council of ministers will be choosing this person and they don't necessarily have to be Irish. We wont have a choice who this person will be,They choose who it is,bless them. Sure we wouldn't know what is best for us.

The MEP's will consist of elected officials but their roles will be of suggestion makers, not of anything else. The way this whole thing is set up is very undemocratic and very unfair to the smaller nations. Please Please do some research on this treaty as there is a lot of important information being hidden in it. Generation yes are using NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) which is a form of brainwashing used by multi level maketing fraudsters in their advertising which makes me sick.

I urge many of you to look into these things from multiple views but not wiki and the like because they are very unreliable and it is so sad when you have to say you can't even trust your own broadcaster RTE. They have drawn their line in the sand very clearly on the yes side, for which they will never recieve another cent from me again for.

Sam Vimes

squod wrote: »

I like my democracies democratic, balanced and fair. Without the need to 'hustle' to be heard. The system we have is fine for now.

I thought democracy was a system where the majority got what they wanted but you seem to want a system where 100% of countries have to agree before something can change and a tiny minority can hold a massive majority to ransom. Is that democracy?

ei.sdraob

someoneok wrote: »

I hope that most are aware that if Lisbon is voted yes that we will never have a referendum ever again on any issues that arise after we become federalised. Also worryingly enough this treaty is self amending which means these Eurocrats can change whatever they like without the consent of the peoples of Europe. Sounds like a dictatorship to me. Just look at the poor American model now! Power must be dispersed and not centralised, Many commentators in the passed have warned us of the dangers of centralised power ie. De Valera.

Declan Ganley wants a United States of Europe



yes the same man who is the spokesman for the NO side and was involved in debates on tv and radio yesterday



:cool:

Sam Vimes

someoneok wrote: »

I hope that most are aware that if Lisbon is voted yes that we will never have a referendum ever again on any issues that arise after we become federalised.

I'm aware of that particular lie yes

RandomName2

To be, or not to be - wheth'r t'is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of yes side slander - or by taking arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing, end them. For Lisbon to die, to sleep - no more: t'is a consummation devoutly to be wished. Lisbon die, to sleep, perchance retribution: ay; there's the rub. For in this sleep of death what dreams may come when we have burst our economic bubble must give us pause. There's the respect that makes calamity of such frivolous spending; for who would bear the whips and scorns of campaign, the Dail's contumely, the pangs of the public's dispriz'd love, the law's delay, the insolence of taoiseach, the spurns that patient meirt that the unworthy take when he himself might his quietus make with bloody rising? To fardels bear to grunt and sweat under a weary cause? But that the dread of everlasting recession: the recovered country from whose born coffin ships have scorned, puzzles the will and makes us forfeit the ills we have to fly to those we know not of. Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; and the native hue of resolution is sicklied ov'r with such pale contemplation; and national enterprise of such pith and moment, in this regard its current turns awry and lose the name of action.

Soft you now, the fair Europa, nymph of thy orisons; by all thy sins remembr'd.

ei.sdraob

RandomName2 wrote: »

To be, or not to be - wheth'r t'is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of yes side slander - or by taking arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing, end them. For Lisbon to die, to sleep - no more: t'is a consummation devoutly to be wished. Lisbon die, to sleep, perchance retribution: ay; there's the rub. For in this sleep of death what dreams may come when we have burst our economic bubble must give us pause. There's the respect that makes calamity of such frivolous spending; for who would bear the whips and scorns of campaign, the Dail's contumely, the pangs of the public's dispriz'd love, the law's delay, the insolence of taoiseach, the spurns that patient meirt that the unworthy take when he himself might his quietus make with bloody rising? To fardels bear to grunt and sweat under a weary cause? But that the dread of everlasting recession: the recovered country from whose born coffin ships have scorned, puzzles the will and makes us forfeit the ills we have to fly to those we know not of. Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; and the native hue of resolution is sicklied ov'r with such pale contemplation; and national enterprise of such pith and moment, in this regard its current turns awry and lose the name of action.

Soft you now, the fair Europa, nymph of thy orisons; by all thy sins remembr'd.

Shakespeare is spinning in his grave

squod

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I thought democracy was a system where the majority got what they wanted but you seem to want a system where 100% of countries have to agree before something can change and a tiny minority can hold a massive majority to ransom. Is that democracy?

That's not what I said. The system we have is fine for now.

Wendell Gee

I'm voting Yes, and campaigning for the Yes side (Ireland for Europe) for a number of reasons.
1 The biggest problem with the EU is the power of the Commission. Lisbon gives more power to the Parliament, through co-decision, and the national Parliaments, who must be presented with all proposals for perusal- a job for our Oireachtas, the only improving and properly functioning aspect of our Parliament (incidentally, modelled on the EU and US systems)
2 The Lisbon treaty is largely about addressing this democratic deficit and about creating a structure to cope with the expanded 27 member union.
3 Many of the anti-Lisbon activists, especially those on the extreme right and extreme left, have opposed every referendum on Europe since 1973. At every turn- The single European Act, Nice, Maastricht, and again now in Lisbon 1 and 2, we have heard the same dire warnings regarding sovereignty, militarisation, and ethical issues. None of them have come true. At each turn, the 3 major political parties, who we all find so distateful, but who consistently receive about 80% of our votes in every election, have supported the proposals, with the notable exception of Fianna Fail, Cowen included, who voted against the Single European Act for narrow party reasons, to their eternal shame (under Haughey, they also destroyed the first divorce referendum and opposed the Anglo-Irish agreement).
4 I am not voting yes out of fear. I wish the yes side would stop wittering on about "good for jobs", and get on with explaining the necessary but extremely boring structural reforms that lie at the heart of Lisbon.
5 Above all, don't vote no because you object to being asked a second time.
The first Lisbon debate was frankly embarrassing, and I couldn't blame anyone for voting no in all the confusion. This time, there is more clarity, and to believe that we- the entire EU 27 goverments and 500m citizens- should abandon Lisbon without considering it a second time, is a little arrogant.

A small digression. I once asked a girl out. She said No. Our paths didn't cross for a few years. I asked again and she accepted. We celebrated our 15th wedding anniversary last week, and have three beautiful children.
If no must always mean no, with absolute finality, then Declan Ganley would have accepted the peoples' verdict on Libertas and withdrawn from public life. I'm glad he didn't. We need dissent and debate, but having looked at the matter closely, I'm voting Yes.

Wendell Gee

Sorry, a small omission in point 1 "Oireachtas" should have read "Oireachtas Committees"

Sam Vimes

squod wrote: »

That's not what I said. The system we have is fine for now.

But that's the system we have now.....

And I asked you which is more democratic? So which is do you think?

gandalf

I will be voting No to Lisbon.

RandomName2

Wendell Gee wrote: »

A small digression. I once asked a girl out. She said No. Our paths didn't cross for a few years. I asked again and she accepted. We celebrated our 15th wedding anniversary last week, and have three beautiful children.

Although I'm glad for your personal success; perhaps things wouldn't have worked out as well if you asked her again two weeks later and said that if she said 'no' again, that she would be seen as isolationist and wouldn't have any friends in the general community...

I agree with you about the Commission. Which is why I don't like the fact that it gains more power under Lisbon.

squod

Wendell Gee wrote: »

A small digression. I once asked a girl out. She said No. Our paths didn't cross for a few years. I asked again and she accepted. We celebrated our 15th wedding anniversary last week, and have three beautiful children.

What's your opinion then on why were voting again so soon on the same treaty. Seeing how you could wait years for the love of your life, what's the rush with Lisbon.

Also I'd like to ask why in your opinion so many people who have voted yes on Niece, are voting no on Lisbon.

Sam Vimes

squod wrote: »

What's your opinion then on why were voting again so soon on the same treaty. Seeing how you could wait years for the love of your life, what's the rush with Lisbon.

I asked you this question before and you didn't answer it. We had issues, those issues were addressed, they asked us again. What difference does it make if they wait 10 days or 10 years to ask us if we've changed our minds? Once the issues were addressed why wait?

someoneok

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm aware of that particular lie yes

I'm aware of many of your particular lies too. I've been looking at your log. Makes interesting reading.

joseph brand

I was thinking of voting Yes, because Mickey Martin told me to. He can very much be trusted. What with his three pensions and teaching post still held, (noone can apply for permanent job, its his, even though he ain't been there for years) and his general charm.

The people who ruined this country want us to vote Yes, sure they'll never let us down again. :rolleyes:

Anti Lisbon is NOT anti Europe. Wish people would shaddup sayin it is.


Oh yeah, Mick O Leary, who thinks for a second that he cares about workers and their jobs?? The man who wants people to stand on a plane and pay for toilet use?? Obviously a peoples man. :rolleyes:

There's more money for the crooks and cronies and bosses, in Lisbon, not much for the workers.


NO, Booooooooo!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/gavinhewitt/ (BBC reporting on Lisbon debate in Irish Times offices with Matt Cooper, Martin, O leary, Ganley, Higgins etc. . )

squod

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I asked you this question before and you didn't answer it. We had issues, those issues were addressed, they asked us again. What difference does it make if they wait 10 days or 10 years to ask us if we've changed our minds? Once the issues were addressed why wait?

The actual problem around Lisbon #1 was that people were not given a public debate on the treaty. As we seen last night, there were no well informed, balanced, open and frank discussions about articles or issues.


So you want the same rushed campaign as last time, the same lies on the posters and the same confusion. I don't.

Sam Vimes

squod wrote: »

The actual problem around Lisbon #1 was that people were not given a public debate on the treaty. As we seen last night, there were no well informed, balanced, open and frank discussion about articles or issues.

That was one debate. There is a plethora of information out there for anyone who wants it. People can't expect to be able to sit there in front of the tv and have someone spoon feed them all of the issues in a 277 page document. Every public debate is going to descend into the same "lie, refutation, lie" debacle we saw yesterday. In a debate it comes down to who you believe, not who is telling the truth. To find that out you have to look stuff up. You can't explain this treaty on a poster or in a debate, people need to educate themselves.

edit: and as has been shown repeatedly, even when you show people the irrefutable truth they won't listen because the people who told the lies were more convincing and their predictions were scarier

squod wrote: »

So you want the same rushed campaign as last time, the same lies on the posters and the same confusion. I don't.

It was illegal to campaign until the last 30 days before the referendum so no matter how long they waited it would have been the same rushed campaign. It was up to the people to inform themselves over the last year. What makes you think that there would have been fewer lies if we waited a few years? The lies were shown to be lies two years ago but it hasn't stopped them being repeated yet

edit: and lets not forget they're the same lies recycled from Nice and Maastricht. They've been saying this stuff for far more than ten years

moondogspot

joseph brand wrote: »

I was thinking of voting Yes, because Mickey Martin told me to. He can very much be trusted. What with his three pensions and teaching post still held, (noone can apply for permanent job, its his, even though he ain't been there for years) and his general charm.

The people who ruined this country want us to vote Yes, sure they'll never let us down again. :rolleyes:

Anti Lisbon is NOT anti Europe. Wish people would shaddup sayin it is.


Oh yeah, Mick O Leary, who thinks for a second that he cares about workers and their jobs?? The man who wants people to stand on a plane and pay for toilet use?? Obviously a peoples man. :rolleyes:

There's more money for the crooks and cronies and bosses, in Lisbon, not much for the workers.


NO, Booooooooo!!!

Well put together!!!

squod

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That was one debate. There is a plethora of information out there for anyone who wants it. People can't expect to be able to sit there in front of the tv and have someone spoon feed them all of the issues in a 277 page document. Every public debate is going to descend into the same "lie, refutation, lie" debacle we saw yesterday. In a debate it comes down to who you believe, not who is telling the truth. To find that out you have to look stuff up. You can't explain this treaty on a poster or in a debate, people need to educate themselves.

edit: and as has been shown repeatedly, even when you show people the irrefutable truth they won't listen because the people who told the lies were more convincing and their predictions were scarier

It was illegal to campaign until the last 30 days before the referendum so no matter how long they waited it would have been the same rushed campaign. It was up to the people to inform themselves over the last year. What makes you think that there would have been fewer lies if we waited a few years? The lies were shown to be lies two years ago but it hasn't stopped them being repeated yet

edit: and lets not forget they're the same lies recycled from Nice and Maastricht. They've been saying this stuff for far more than ten years

Honestly, I think you mean to say we should get in and vote before the Brits do. Waiting around for a while won't hurt, what goes on in relation to Britain and the Lisbon vote is their business.

If time was on our side I'd say fine, let the peole find out for themselves by reading about it and debating amonst themselves. As it is, the people I talk to are talking about what the posters say, little else. Spending money in a time of recession on another Lisbon referendum this soon after Lisbon #1 is a little silly IMO.

Scofflaw

squod wrote: »

Honestly, I think you mean to say we should get in and vote before the Brits do. Waiting around for a while won't hurt, what goes on in relation to Britain and the Lisbon vote is their business.

If time was on our side I'd say fine, let the peole find out for themselves by reading about it and debating amonst themselves. As it is, the people I talk to are talking about what the posters say, little else. Spending money in a time of recession on another Lisbon referendum this soon after Lisbon #1 is a little silly IMO.

People have had 18 months or more to "read about it and debate it amongst themselves". If people are interested to do so, they've done so - if not, no amount of extra time will lead to them doing so.

We can't keep putting off a decision forever, much as the No side would like that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sam Vimes

Scofflaw wrote: »

People have had 18 months or more to "read about it and debate it amongst themselves". If people are interested to do so, they've done so - if not, no amount of extra time will lead to them doing so.

We can't keep putting off a decision forever, much as the No side would like that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

this

dizzywizlw

Scofflaw wrote: »

People have had 18 months or more to "read about it and debate it amongst themselves". If people are interested to do so, they've done so - if not, no amount of extra time will lead to them doing so.

We can't keep putting off a decision forever, much as the No side would like that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I have yet to be quoted the paragraph of the constitution where the Government has to spoon feed us potential policies because we are too lazy to get informed.

Well Said

hatrickpatrick

joseph brand wrote: »

Anti Lisbon is NOT anti Europe. Wish people would shaddup sayin it is.

This times 10,000. It's getting old. "We're better off in Europe" - yes we are. And we're in Europe whether we accept this particular change to the EU or not.

dizzywizlw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

. And we're in Europe whether we accept this particular change to the EU or not.

Yes but we'll BE better off in Europe if we vote yes.

meglome

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This times 10,000. It's getting old. "We're better off in Europe" - yes we are. And we're in Europe whether we accept this particular change to the EU or not.

Obviously one doesn't automatically equal the other. However I've lost count of the number of times I've heard 'I'm not anti-EU BUT...'. When you add to that the majority of the No campaign have voted No to every EU single treaty they've been in existence for it's very difficult not to see the big BUT.

Johnboy1951

dizzywizlw wrote: »

Yes but we'll BE better off in Europe if we vote yes.

... maybe, maybe not ....... but it won't be a better Europe ..... unless of course you are one of those like Mick O'Leary who employs thousands etc .....