I'm voting 'no' for one reason only...

Plotician

I'm tired of public representatives who are supposed to act in the interests of the people but fail to provide the full picture.

Give me the facts and i'll make a balanced and educated choice based on that information. Give me the positives AND the negatives and don't be afraid to do so. Try to influence me with biased arguments and your own agenda then you'll get a protest vote.

A protest at what...?

A protest at a political system that endemically serves it's own purpose.
A protest at a political system that fails to fully inform the electorate.
A protest at a political system that is rife with internal agendas.
A protest at a political system that puts power before people.

Learn to trust me with the facts, and you'll get my trust in return. Until then any little act that helps provoke some self-examination is far more appealing.

And for those who say that's naieve and a 'no' for the wrong reasons - i don't care. There's a bigger picture here - it's called the true preservation of democracy.

(Guess i'm just tired of all the shyte!)

marco_polo

Plotician wrote: »

(Guess i'm just tired of all the shyte!)

*Sigh*. Me too. I am sure that someday soon, somebody, somewhere, is going to start a thread with an actual coherant argument based on the treaty contents.

IrishGooner83

Cutting your nose off to spite your face....

This is a vote thats bigger than the squabble politics of Ireland. A 'No' vote for the simple reason of just sticking it to the Govt will come back and bite this country in the proverbial ass....

There's a reason why EVERY mainstream political party and industry/trade organisation is advocating a Yes vote. EU membership has had a massive positive effect on this country. We either want to be part of Europe or we dont.... Or hey we can leave Europe and go down the route of Iceland and be a political and economic 'island' in all senses of the word.

Read the documentation. Make the effort yourself and become informed. A No vote would have hugely negative reprecussions for Ireland on the international stage.

Voting No is anyones choice. But be informed and dont just Vote No as you think your shafting the Government.... Because really you'll just end up shafting yourself and everyone else when we have to clean up the mess afterwards.

Euro_Kraut

I understand that you are frustrated by the level of debate. There certainly is a lot untruths being peddled in this campaign.

I fail to see how that should prompt you to vote no however. I also don't accept that it is anybodies job to outline the facts of the treaty to you. That is your job as a voter.

None of the frustrations that you have outlined will be addressed by voting 'No'.

P. Breathnach

Plotician wrote: »

I'm tired of public representatives who are supposed to act in the interests of the people but fail to provide the full picture.

Give me the facts and i'll make a balanced and educated choice based on that information. Give me the positives AND the negatives and don't be afraid to do so. Try to influence me with biased arguments and your own agenda then you'll get a protest vote.

A protest at what...?

A protest at a political system that endemically serves it's own purpose.
A protest at a political system that fails to fully inform the electorate.
A protest at a political system that is rife with internal agendas.
A protest at a political system that puts power before people.

Learn to trust me with the facts, and you'll get my trust in return. Until then any little act that helps provoke some self-examination is far more appealing.

And for those who say that's naieve and a 'no' for the wrong reasons - i don't care. There's a bigger picture here - it's called the true preservation of democracy.

(Guess i'm just tired of all the shyte!)

And I'm tired of the kind of shyte that you posted.

NothingMan

Plotician wrote: »

I'm tired of public representatives who are supposed to act in the interests of the people but fail to provide the full picture.

Give me the facts and i'll make a balanced and educated choice based on that information. Give me the positives AND the negatives and don't be afraid to do so. Try to influence me with biased arguments and your own agenda then you'll get a protest vote.

A protest at what...?

A protest at a political system that endemically serves it's own purpose.
A protest at a political system that fails to fully inform the electorate.
A protest at a political system that is rife with internal agendas.
A protest at a political system that puts power before people.

Learn to trust me with the facts, and you'll get my trust in return. Until then any little act that helps provoke some self-examination is far more appealing.

And for those who say that's naieve and a 'no' for the wrong reasons - i don't care. There's a bigger picture here - it's called the true preservation of democracy.

(Guess i'm just tired of all the shyte!)

But that's not a protest vote. That's a vote in favor of the no side. The side that is peddling blatant lies and warped truths.

The yes side aren't great at informing either but it's not protesting if you're actively supporting a side you disagree with as well.

If you're not sure what's going on, try looking up some info yourself. If you rely on the 2 bias sides to give you a full easy answer it's not going to happen.

But if you don't want to support either side then don't vote at all and let people who have educated themselves on the issues vote.

Plotician

I have done the reading and i do actually think a 'European Empire' type approach might be better in the long run. What i need to see though is some honesty about it.

De Hipster

Plotician wrote: »

I'm tired of public representatives who are supposed to act in the interests of the people but fail to provide the full picture.

Give me the facts and i'll make a balanced and educated choice based on that information. Give me the positives AND the negatives and don't be afraid to do so. Try to influence me with biased arguments and your own agenda then you'll get a protest vote.

A protest at what...?

A protest at a political system that endemically serves it's own purpose.
A protest at a political system that fails to fully inform the electorate.
A protest at a political system that is rife with internal agendas.
A protest at a political system that puts power before people.

Learn to trust me with the facts, and you'll get my trust in return. Until then any little act that helps provoke some self-examination is far more appealing.

And for those who say that's naieve and a 'no' for the wrong reasons - i don't care. There's a bigger picture here - it's called the true preservation of democracy.

(Guess i'm just tired of all the shyte!)

I completely agree & will be taking a similar approach. The YES campaign can either inform rather than threaten or lump the consequences.

NothingMan

De Hipster wrote: »

I completely agree & will be taking a similar approach. The YES campaign can either inform rather than threaten or lump the consequences.

I think the campaign is a warning, a serious warning that without Europe we will be weaker. FULL STOP.

There are several reasons to vote no, but in my case I believe the benifits far out weigh the reasons to stay out.

By all means vote no, but don't do it just because you don't like the people saying vote yes.

Vote no only if you think Ireland is honestly better off without Europe behind us as it has been through the Celtic Tiger and still is.

Plotician

I guess what i'm hearing here is that any politician invited to comment on the treaty should simply say 'we encourage all voters to read the documentation and take no notice of our own recommendations'?

That's actually not a bad idea - fully support that one.

spank_inferno

Agreed

I've no problem with the treaty, but the crap I see on posters especially from FG confirms my status of not voting again.

Across the N11 there is posters from FG saying "vote YES for recovery"
"Vote YES for jobs"

I bet the UK and Spain are glad they approved the treaty so they wouldnt have record unemployment........ oh wait......

Latvia must feel great approving it also so their didnt have to call in the IMF for a bailout...... hmmmm I think I did it again

Its not an economic treaty!
But FG are tying the approval of the treaty to economic recovery which wont happen.

I hate the NO side for their lies, but I hate the YES side more for theirs because these people should hold themselves to a higher standard.

FACEPALM

Would you vote yes if FF wanted a no vote

Sam Vimes

De Hipster wrote: »

I completely agree & will be taking a similar approach. The YES campaign can either inform rather than threaten or lump the consequences.

I completely agree & will be taking a similar approach. The NO campaign can either inform rather than threaten or lump the consequences.


....

NothingMan

spank_inferno wrote: »

I hate the NO side for their lies, but I hate the YES side more for theirs because these people should hold themselves to a higher standard.

We are talking about politicians, so either side are gonna be talking mostly out their asses. But the Lisbon treaty has yet to be ratified and those countries would have had these issues, Lisbon or not.

All Lisbon does is gives Europe a stronger front to an already united continent. The only problem is the kind of people who become politicians are the very people who turn you off wanting to hear anything about politics.

Plotician

FACEPALM wrote: »

Would you vote yes if FF wanted a no vote

To make a point I'll use the sort of response i saw on Primetime last night.

That's a 'hypothetical question'.

amacachi

The treaty is freely available, the amendment to the constitution is freely availabe, go read them. Or is it politicians' job to go to each person and talk them through every aspect of every paragraph of the treaty?

Plotician

To re-iterate, my point is not about the content of the treaty (i read it last time and it hasn't changed), more about how those in authority here are choosing to present it.

All i'm asking for (and yes little chance of any acknowledgement), is that when politicians are given airtime they use it to provide a balanced picture. By that i mean communicating the aspirations of Europe as a whole which is what this is really about.

Our local issues are important, but they are not really at the forefront of Europe's ideology. We tend to think about short term scenarios and the reality is that Europe has a long term strategy.

Is it so scary to talk about these things? I don't think so - we have an educated nation (thanks to the Celtic Tiger maybe!)

FACEPALM

Listen people need to really think long and hard about this vote .
If you are voting no because the Government ( Muppets ) want you to vote yes this will have serious consequences for the long term Future of this Country.

I hope most people if not all vote for the right reasons .

If you believe in the treaty vote Yes , If not vote no

Sam Vimes

Plotician wrote: »

To re-iterate, my point is not about the content of the treaty (i read it last time and it hasn't changed), more about how those in authority here are choosing to present it.

All i'm asking for (and yes little chance of any acknowledgement), is that when politicians are given airtime they use it to provide a balanced picture. By that i mean communicating the aspirations of Europe as a whole which is what this is really about.

Our local issues are important, but they are not really at the forefront of Europe's ideology. We tend to think about short term scenarios and the reality is that Europe has a long term strategy.

Is it so scary to talk about these things? I don't think so - we have an educated nation (thanks to the Celtic Tiger maybe!)

I agree. But that means you should vote no to a treaty that has been ratified or will soon be ratified by 26 other nations why exactly?

Taltos

But if the treaty gets rejected - will this not also force a general election?
ie loss of confidence in the elected government with their 5 year mandate?

I am not saying that is a good reason to vote NO - but not sure how else to withdraw that mandate.
Only real problem with that is then who else to put in? Lets face it there is not one brain cell among the lot of them, actually that is unfair - there is a common glorious brain cell called GREED.

ei.sdraob

Taltos wrote: »

But if the treaty gets rejected - will this not also force a general election?
ie loss of confidence in the elected government with their 5 year mandate?

I am not saying that is a good reason to vote NO - but not sure how else to withdraw that mandate.
Only real problem with that is then who else to put in? Lets face it there is not one brain cell among the lot of them, actually that is unfair - there is a common glorious brain cell called GREED.

no Lisbon will not bring down the government, just make them (and us indirectly) appear useless in front of other EU states (you know what they say about airing dirty laundry)


the only ones who can bring down the government are the greens

or some sort of a revolution with pitchforks and all that

Daftendirekt

Taltos wrote: »

But if the treaty gets rejected - will this not also force a general election?
ie loss of confidence in the elected government with their 5 year mandate?

I am not saying that is a good reason to vote NO - but not sure how else to withdraw that mandate.
Only real problem with that is then who else to put in? Lets face it there is not one brain cell among the lot of them, actually that is unfair - there is a common glorious brain cell called GREED.

A No to Lisbon will not force a general election. I don't know where people are getting this idea from.

NAMA hasn't forced a general election. Being murdered in the local and European elections hasn't forced one. Presiding over the worst credit crisis to hit Ireland in years hasn't forced one. Enda Kenny calling for a vote of no confidence hasn't forced one.

the only ones who can bring down the government are the greens

This.

Plotician

FACEPALM wrote: »

Listen people need to really think long and hard about this vote .
If you are voting no because the Government ( Muppets ) want you to vote yes this will have serious consequences for the long term Future of this Country.

I hope most people if not all vote for the right reasons .

If you believe in the treaty vote Yes , If not vote no

That's a 100% valid opinion. Unfortunately it is being undermined by influencers who work on the basis that most people won't actually read the treaty (probably correctly). And because it predominantly won't be read they are in that position to be able to influence based on their own local viewpoint or agenda.

Lets step back and consider just a few of the broader questions:

Example concerns:

Attracting FDI from Europe:
How is Europe going to counter cheaper labour and manufacturing costs from Asia for example? What's the real potential here? Ireland is still considered a rich country whereas eastern Europe is still in catch up. In a democratic Europe operating as one legal entity will there be an onus/responsibility/obligation to steer money towards developing european nations?

Attracting FDI from the US:
Will we be allowed to compete on our own terms, or will there be any EU shackles that prevent us from being creative in our own right?

Example benefits:

Energy security and green technology:
Europe can be effective as a single entity in protecting supply and developing new technology. Highly important in the world today.

Let me hear detailed discussions about how areas like these are going to work, are there factors to be considered or not. Let us see that our national representatives are in close with the EU think tanks and not being intimidated themselves by the larger nations.

It is the fact that this treaty is so important that makes transparency and clarity so critical. Do we really want to look back if things go wrong and think we were lead up a garden path. I'll say it again, spell out the ideologies (good and bad) and let us make our decisions based on that. We can then stand by our vote as a people later on if anything goes pear shaped.

In the meantime i still hear these echoes:

“Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly … All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”
- V.Giscard D’Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007

Keewee6

no rejecting lisbon will not bring down the government

Martin 2

Plotician wrote: »

I'm tired of public representatives who are supposed to act in the interests of the people but fail to provide the full picture.

Give me the facts and i'll make a balanced and educated choice based on that information. Give me the positives AND the negatives and don't be afraid to do so. Try to influence me with biased arguments and your own agenda then you'll get a protest vote.

A protest at what...?

A protest at a political system that endemically serves it's own purpose.
A protest at a political system that fails to fully inform the electorate.
A protest at a political system that is rife with internal agendas.
A protest at a political system that puts power before people.

Learn to trust me with the facts, and you'll get my trust in return. Until then any little act that helps provoke some self-examination is far more appealing.

A rather sad and depressing post...

All the information required to make an informed decision is at your disposal, the treaty, the consolidated versions, the referendum commission leaflets, experts on this forum, the media etc., yet you are going to vote no to protest at the governments presentation of the treaty.

The political system does present both sides of the argument but not from the same parties:
-The main political parties support the treaty and all you should expect from them is that they give you truthful reasons to vote yes or in the case of probabilistic issues (the economy, political goodwill etc) reasoned arguments based on likelihood.
-There are political parties (SF, SP) against the treaty and as above all you should expect from them is truthful reasons to vote no.

And for those who say that's naieve and a 'no' for the wrong reasons - i don't care. There's a bigger picture here - it's called the true preservation of democracy.

To me that's that's more of a perversion than a preservation of democracy.

SkepticOne

Plotician wrote: »

In the meantime i still hear these echoes:

“Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly … All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”
- V.Giscard D’Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007

This particular quote has been taken out of context. If you read the full thing you find that D'Estaing was actually against the process of taking bits of the constitution, of which he was one of the primary architects, and inserting them into the treaty thus bypassing public opinion. Shame they did not listen to him.

is_that_so

spank_inferno wrote: »

Agreed

I've no problem with the treaty, but the crap I see on posters especially from FG confirms my status of not voting again.

I hate the NO side for their lies, but I hate the YES side more for theirs because these people should hold themselves to a higher standard.

It is unfortunately a fact of life that for every strongly-held belief here there are an enormous number of others who really do not want to be bothered with the detail and just want a simple message. Providing that the explanations given are also relatively simple then voters can be persuaded to adopt a stance.

I don't fault the parties for poster campaigns, bar the photos of the last time out, as they are trying to find a hook to get people to think about their side of the argument.

the_syco

Plotician wrote: »

A protest at a political system that endemically serves it's own purpose.
A protest at a political system that fails to fully inform the electorate.
A protest at a political system that is rife with internal agendas.
A protest at a political system that puts power before people.

Vote no, and you'll still be stuck with them.

meglome

FACEPALM wrote: »

Would you vote yes if FF wanted a no vote

Plotician wrote: »

To make a point I'll use the sort of response i saw on Primetime last night.

That's a 'hypothetical question'.

I think we can safely assume that they would still vote No, just their reasons for voting No would shift. A tactic we see all too often round here.

I wonder which previously registered user you are?

Plotician

Somehow i just don't accept that the 'buyer beware' principle sits well with his one. Maybe its a natural mistrust of salesmen!

Maybe i'm too cynical but i still expect elected representatives to act as and for the people. The debate is'nt deep or broad enough and it's either a lack of respect for the intelligence of the electorate, or a lack of real understanding by the politicians, or something else? Where is real analysis?

Whatever it is it is'nt comfortable. I'm quite happy with FF in power - they were voted in by an electorate that has a very clear view of what they were voting for. We looked at the positives and negatives, made a decision, and no looking back. All is well on that front.

Yep a 'sad' post maybe? but only a reflection on the way the whole thing is being handled. I still await some responses to specific questions.
Anyone got some concrete info on FDI or energy security?

meglome

spank_inferno wrote: »

Agreed

I've no problem with the treaty, but the crap I see on posters especially from FG confirms my status of not voting again.

Across the N11 there is posters from FG saying "vote YES for recovery"
"Vote YES for jobs"

Those posters may have rubbish slogans on them but they're not a pack of lies. So you righteous indignation seems very one sided.

spank_inferno wrote: »

I bet the UK and Spain are glad they approved the treaty so they wouldnt have record unemployment........ oh wait......

Em how can a treaty which isn't brought into law cause unemployment? Doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

spank_inferno wrote: »

Latvia must feel great approving it also so their didnt have to call in the IMF for a bailout...... hmmmm I think I did it again

How much are they paying for these loans?

spank_inferno wrote: »

Its not an economic treaty!
But FG are tying the approval of the treaty to economic recovery which wont happen.

It makes the running of the EU more efficient, why couldn't that lead to economic recovery?

spank_inferno wrote: »

I hate the NO side for their lies, but I hate the YES side more for theirs because these people should hold themselves to a higher standard.

And from your post it looks to me you'd find some other reason to vote No, just because you want to.