''We're Safer in Europe''

bustertherat

Hey guys.

Just saw this poster today. After seeing it i went home and read the lisbon treaty.

I have to admit I'm really confused.

The poster is advocating a Yes vote because ''we're safer in Europe.''

Does this mean if we vote no that continental borders will be re-drawn and Ireland will no longer be in Europe? And that our current ''safety'' levels will be diminished?

Does anyone know what continent we would then be members of? Will it be Asia?

Its just that after reading the treaty earlier I didnt find anything in it that mentioned re-drawing continental borders...

Maybe someone can clarify.

cordially,

Buster

Scofflaw

bustertherat wrote: »

Hey guys.

Just saw this poster today. After seeing it i went home and read the lisbon treaty.

I have to admit I'm really confused.

The poster is advocating a Yes vote because ''we're safer in Europe.''

Does this mean if we vote no that continental borders will be re-drawn and Ireland will no longer be in Europe? And that our current ''safety'' levels will be diminished?

Does anyone know what continent we would then be members of? Will it be Asia?

Its just that after reading the treaty earlier I didnt find anything in it that mentioned re-drawing continental borders...

Maybe someone can clarify.

cordially,

Buster

It could be a reference to the various provisions on cross-border crime (particularly against women and children) in Lisbon. We've opted out, but it would still make Europe safer. The woman actually says "I'm safer in Europe", as far as I recall.

Alternatively, it could be a completely vacuous slogan.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ghost_ie

Scofflaw wrote: »

It could be a reference to the various provisions on cross-border crime (particularly against women and children) in Lisbon. We've opted out, but it would still make Europe safer. The woman actually says "I'm safer in Europe", as far as I recall.

Alternatively, it could be a completely vacuous slogan.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'd say "completely vacuous slogan" is the correct interpretation

bustertherat

Scofflaw wrote: »

It could be a reference to the various provisions on cross-border crime (particularly against women and children) in Lisbon. We've opted out, but it would still make Europe safer. The woman actually says "I'm safer in Europe", as far as I recall.

Alternatively, it could be a completely vacuous slogan.

cordially,
Scofflaw

God, if what you're saying is true it appears that this poster is extremely misleading. Because when one looks at it the interpretation is that a No vote will mean we are no longer in Europe. This blatant scare-mongering tactic would have almost persuaded me to vote Yes, so my heartfelt thanks must go to Scofflaw for clearing this up for me.

I'm so mad right now, I can't believe the Yes posters are so blatantly deceptive. Its almost like the Government is trying to scare us into voting Yes. I never thought the people who are representing us at a national level would be so inclined to not have our best interests at heart. Oh silly me.

cordially,
Buster

Scofflaw

bustertherat wrote: »

God, if what you're saying is true it appears that this poster is extremely misleading. Because when one looks at it the interpretation is that a No vote will mean we are no longer in Europe. This blatant scare-mongering tactic would have almost persuaded me to vote Yes, so my heartfelt thanks must go to Scofflaw for clearing this up for me.

I'm so mad right now, I can't believe the Yes posters are so blatantly deceptive. Its almost like the Government is trying to scare us into voting Yes. I never thought the people who are representing us at a national level would be so inclined to not hae our best interests at heart. Oh silly me.

cordially,
Buster

Well, you were going to vote No anyway, so you don't really need to worry about the details - which is probably just as well, since you have most of them mixed up.

amused,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

bustertherat wrote: »

God, if what you're saying is true it appears that this poster is extremely misleading. Because when one looks at it the interpretation is that a No vote will mean we are no longer in Europe. This blatant scare-mongering tactic would have almost persuaded me to vote Yes, so my heartfelt thanks must go to Scofflaw for clearing this up for me.

I'm so mad right now, I can't believe the Yes posters are so blatantly deceptive. Its almost like the Government is trying to scare us into voting Yes. I never thought the people who are representing us at a national level would be so inclined to not have our best interests at heart. Oh silly me.

cordially,
Buster

And the poster is from ..... ?

Scofflaw

ghost_ie wrote: »

I'd say "completely vacuous slogan" is the correct interpretation

Probably...

amused,
Scofflaw

Tarobot

bustertherat wrote: »

I'm so mad right now, I can't believe the Yes posters are so blatantly deceptive. Its almost like the Government is trying to scare us into voting Yes. I never thought the people who are representing us at a national level would be so inclined to not have our best interests at heart. Oh silly me.

cordially,
Buster

Where's your rant about the Coir posters? Lies are far worse than a bunch of platitudes.

We're waiting...

thebigcheese22

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, you were going to vote No anyway, so you don't really need to worry.

amused,
Scofflaw

Yeah that does seem fairly obvious given your tone.

And your stealing of Scofflaw's trademark sign-off is unforgivable in my book :mad:

BlitzKrieg

why are the posters important anyway?

ei.sdraob

bustertherat wrote: »

. Its almost like the Government is trying to scare us into voting Yes.

like the alternative on the NO side are saints themselves

http://www.coircampaign.org/index.php/materials-documents/posters

ahem


anyways the poster is correct if it refers to human trafficking, which is a serious issue in all EU countries including Ireland

Sam Vimes

Interpreting "we're safer in Europe" to mean that we'll be kicked out if we vote no it's what's known as a "straw man"

SkepticOne

The poster is misleading. Most of the posters on both sides are misleading. The gloves are off at this stage.

bustertherat

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

why are the posters important anyway?

You don't think posters have any effect on how people vote...?

cordially,
Buster

thebigcheese22

Also if I was stretching it beyond belief, it could refer to the climate-change element of the Treaty. However I kind of agree that these Yes posters do not specify at all the pertinent benefits, instead favouring vague themes.


Also your posts in the Conspiracy Forum suggest that the OP wasn't a question at all

Run to the hills, you sir are my favourite person on boards.ie!!!!

Would the Irish people please wake up....Lisbon is the finally step towards totalitarianism!!!!

would you also believe the pro lisbon mods banned me from the EU forum for expressing my anti lisbon opinion!!!how does that not surprise me!!!

ei.sdraob

SkepticOne wrote: »

The poster is misleading. Most of the posters on both sides are misleading. The gloves are off at this stage.

You wouldn't be saying that if you were a woman trafficked into Europe to be raped and abused

funny how Coir care more for unborn fetuses than grown up people

marco_polo

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

why are the posters important anyway?

Probably because they represent the only research that a large proportion of the poplation will partake in prior to voting

SkepticOne

ei.sdraob wrote: »

You wouldn't be saying that if you were a woman trafficked into Europe to be raped and abused

funny how Coir care more for unborn fetuses than grown up people

No offence but your hysterics seem to me to be as bad as Coir's.

K-9

Hated this poster more than the other Yes ones, but I suppose it is a direct response to the "EU will conscript all our children" point, when most EU Countries have done away with conscription and very few have it.

The poster is based on the Treaty, which makes a change!

Scofflaw

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

Also if I was stretching it beyond belief, it could refer to the climate-change element of the Treaty. However I kind of agree that these Yes posters do not specify at all the pertinent benefits, instead favouring vague themes.

I believe the Referendum Commission made a remark to that effect - that the reason they more often contradicted No side claims wasn't bias, but that the No side made specific and false claims about the Treaty, whereas the Yes side claims were "more vague and general".

cordially,
Scofflaw

nullzero

Lies, damn lies and Lisbon treaty posters.

BlitzKrieg

bustertherat wrote: »

You don't think posters have any effect on how people vote...?

cordially,
Buster

No more so then the countless other sources of information on the treaty. They just happen to be a very bad source regardless of who puts it up.


Actually I cant think of a single poster put up by either side thats been truthfull

Hell I cant think of any from the general election either.

Or the European Election.

When have posters actually been benefitial to the issue rather then simply stirring sh*t up?

ei.sdraob

SkepticOne wrote: »

No offence but your hysterics seem to me to be as bad as Coir's.

nullzero wrote: »

Lies, damn lies and Lisbon treaty posters.

half a million people is not "hysterics" or a lie

"An estimated 500,000 women from Central and Eastern Europe are working in prostitution in the EU alone"

http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_02/uk/ethique/intro.htm

Young women and girls are often lured to wealthier countries by the promises of money and work and then reduced to sexual slavery

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2547626.ece



more reading for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking


i provided facts and figures, now are there any more comments from the NO side that will spit on these people

/

K-9

bustertherat wrote: »

You don't think posters have any effect on how people vote...?

cordially,
Buster

YEP, they do as COIR proved, but they can go too far, as COIR proved, but time will tell. The minimum wage one, maybe brilliant or so outlandish, it could seriously backfire.

ei.sdraob

however little i like Greens for not letting FF fall, i have to agree with this


Lisbon Treaty is good for Women - De Burca

Issued: 03 September 2009
Statement by Deirdre de Burca
Spokesperson on Health and Children; Defence; European Affairs; Gaeltacht


Lisbon builds on Europe's good track record on women’s rights
At a public meeting on the Lisbon Treaty hosted by the Feminist Open Forum last night in the Central Hotel in Dublin, the Green Party’s spokesperson on European Affairs, Senator Deirdre de Burca said that the Lisbon Treaty represented a ‘good deal for women’.
“The European Union has a very good track record in relation to women’s rights generally and has been responsible for our domestic legislation on equal pay, non-discrimination, maternity leave and parental leave” she said. “The Lisbon Treaty builds upon, and consolidates this” she said.
Senator de Burca told those present that the Lisbon Treaty would mainstream gender into all EU activities and would combat discrimination based on sex. She said that the Lisbon treaty would help the EU to fight against human trafficking and the sexual exploitation of women and children.
“The Lisbon Treaty also contains an objective to combat all kinds of domestic violence and requires Member States to take all necessary measures to prevent and punish such violence” she said.
The Green Party Senator also told her audience that the Lisbon Treaty contains strong policies that would help to tackle poverty in the developing world, make the European Union more accountable, democratic and transparent and enable its Members States to be better able to tackle major environmental challenges.
Senator de Burca urged Irish women to vote Yes to the Lisbon Treaty in the referendum on October 2nd

marco_polo

SkepticOne wrote: »

No offence but your hysterics seem to me to be as bad as Coir's.

But it is very tangible and real benefit. Which in our wisdom we have chosen not to partake in. Bizarly it appears to be purely because the UK isn't participating , our position on this section changed between the original constitution and Lisbon, because after they opted out, we did likewise.

Article 83 (ex Article 31 TEU)

1. The European Parliament and the Council may, by means of directives adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, establish minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the areas of particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension resulting from the nature or impact of such offences or from a special need to combat them on a common basis. These areas of crime are the following: terrorism, trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of women and children, illicit drug trafficking, illicit arms trafficking, money laundering, corruption, counterfeiting of means of payment, computer crime and organised crime. On the basis of developments in crime, the Council may adopt a decision identifying other areas of crime that meet the criteria specified in this paragraph. It shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

2. If the approximation of criminal laws and regulations of the Member States proves essential to ensure the effective implementation of a Union policy in an area which has been subject to harmonisation measures, directives may establish minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area concerned. Such directives shall be adopted by the same ordinary or special legislative procedure as was followed for the adoption of the harmonisation measures in question, without prejudice to Article 76.

3. Where a member of the Council considers that a draft directive as referred to in paragraph 1 or 2 would affect fundamental aspects of its criminal justice system, it may request that the draft directive be referred to the European Council. In that case, the ordinary legislative procedure shall be suspended. After discussion, and in case of a consensus, the European Council shall, within four months of this suspension, refer the draft back to the Council, which shall terminate the suspension of the ordinary legislative procedure. Within the same timeframe, in case of disagreement, and if at least nine Member States wish to establish enhanced cooperation on the basis of the draft directive concerned, they shall notify the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission accordingly. In such a case, the authorisation to proceed with enhanced cooperation referred to in Article 20(2) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 329(1) of this Treaty shall be deemed to be granted and the provisions on enhanced cooperation shall apply.

SkepticOne

"Safer in Europe" "Vote Yes"

The posters are misleading because the implication of them is that the vote has something to do with membership of the EU. They show a certain contempt for the electorate.

The main argument in their defence seems to be that they are no worse than the fringe loony Coir group's posters. Those making that argument, however, are admitting that they are willing to sink as low as their opponents in order to win this fight.

It's going to get interesting from here on in.

nullzero

ei.sdraob wrote: »

half a million people is not "hysterics" or a lie

"An estimated 500,000 women from Central and Eastern Europe are working in prostitution in the EU alone"

http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_02/uk/ethique/intro.htm





http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2547626.ece



more reading for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking


i provided facts and figures, now are there any more comments from the NO side that will spit on these people

/

I was merely using humor to highlight the dirty tactics used by both sides in the Lisbon debate.

I agree that human trafficking is an awful thing, but I don't know what relevance it has to this thread.
I think you may perhaps be taking this too much to heart, I can't see how anyone here is saying; "No to Lisbon, Yes to human trafficking and abuse of women". I just don't see the context and I don't appreciate you taking what was an off the cuff comment which was meant to raise a wry smile from those who read it and have it turned into something sinister and nasty.

SkepticOne

marco_polo wrote: »

But it is very tangible and real benefit. Which in our wisdom we have chosen not to partake in. Bizarly it appears to be purely because the UK isn't participating , our position on this section changed between the original constitution and Lisbon, because after they opted out, we did likewise.

Nothing wrong with that but Ireland remains "In Europe" regardless of the Lisbon vote.

SkepticOne

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i provided facts and figures, now are there any more comments from the NO side that will spit on these people

More hysterics tbh, suggesting that the No side are in favour of human trafficking.

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

Nothing wrong with that but Ireland remains "In Europe" regardless of the Lisbon vote.

We would be in Europe whether we were in the EU or not. It's a simple fact of geography. Whether we would retain our current good working relationship with the EU is a different matter.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

nullzero wrote: »

I agree that human trafficking is an awful thing, but I don't know what relevance it has to this thread..

The OP said

bustertherat wrote: »

The poster is advocating a Yes vote because ''we're safer in Europe.''

and I made it clear that its probably referring to the human trafficking points in the treaty

hence its quite relevant to this thread

SkepticOne wrote: »

More hysterics tbh, suggesting that the No side are in favour of human trafficking.

actually i didnt suggest that since i was replying about you and @ nullzero in particular

no need to try to twist things my post is very clear reply to your both posts

/

K-9

It is interesting that a poster that IS based on Lisbon, creates such disdain!

nullzero

ei.sdraob wrote: »

The OP said




and I made it clear that its probably referring to the human trafficking points in the treaty

hence its quite relevant to this thread




actually i didnt suggest that since i was replying about you and @ nullzero in particular

no need to try to twist things my post is very clear reply to your both posts

/

Fair point.
But it doesn't excuse you taking my post completely out of context.
It was the wrong thing to do, you were wrong to do it, do you not agree?
Do you believe I was belittling you or your argument in what I posted?
I can assure you I wasn't, i was merely making a light hearted comment that had nothing to do with any of your posts and I can assure you that I was more than a little peeved to see some jumped up zealot quoting me and turning a completely inoffensive post into some sort of support for human trafficking.
You were out of line, end of.

ei.sdraob

nullzero wrote: »

turning a completely inoffensive post into some sort of support for human trafficking.
You were out of line, end of.

no I was not, if it bothers you that your vote may result in people not being "safe" then maybe you should reconsider your position

the poster is perfectly correct and the fact that it started a debate means that it accomplished its purpose of raising awareness of Lisbon and cross-border crime


without Lisbon there is no agreement or policy between all EU states on how to handle cross border crime such as human trafficking

so in effect yes by voting NO you may be responsible for more cross-border crime


in such a scenario the EU states would waste more years trying to figure out how to implement all of the points from Lisbon across all states in a unanimous fashion, instead of dealing with this serious issue (and many more)

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

We would be in Europe whether we were in the EU or not. It's a simple fact of geography.

I doubt if many looking at the poster that says "It's simple, I'm safer in Europe - Vote YES" is thinking that Europe here refers to the geographical entity. The posters are about the EU.

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

I doubt if many looking at the poster that says "It's simple, I'm safer in Europe - Vote YES" is thinking that Europe here refers to the geographical entity. The posters are about the EU.

Yes, I'm afraid I was harking back to earlier pedantries about people deliberately confusing the words 'Europe' and 'EU'. On the other hand, there's a slight double meaning to it, in that voting Yes to Lisbon means that women will in general be safer in Europe.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nullzero

ei.sdraob wrote: »

no I was not, if it bothers you that your vote may result in people not being "safe" then maybe you should reconsider your position

the poster is perfectly correct and the fact that it started a debate means that it accomplished its purpose of raising awareness of Lisbon and cross-border crime


without Lisbon there is no agreement or policy between all EU states on how to handle cross border crime such as human trafficking

so in effect yes by voting NO you may be responsible for more cross-border crime


in such a scenario the EU states would waste more years trying to figure out how to implement all of the points from Lisbon across all states in a unanimous fashion, instead of dealing with this serious issue (and many more)

I wasn't advocating a Yes or No vote.
I was merely attempted to inject some humor into the thread.
You were out of line in making me out to be in favour of human trafficking.
I made no point about the treaty at all, I took a swipe at the poster campaign on both sides.
You're really starting to get on my nerves, you seem to have no concept of logic or decenecy.
I made a harmless funny comment which was in no way affiliated with a Yes or No vote and you turned it into me supporting human trafficking. Where the hell do you get off making assumptions like that?
You have shown a complete lack of respect to me for absolutely no reason at all, I wasn't even addressing you or your argument, you just picked on me for no reason, can you not see what I'm talking about here?

corcaigh07

SkepticOne wrote: »

The poster is misleading. Most of the posters on both sides are misleading. The gloves are off at this stage.

never a truer word said

Scofflaw

nullzero wrote: »

I wasn't advocating a Yes or No vote.
I was merely attempted to inject some humor into the thread.
You were out of line in making me out to be in favour of human trafficking.
I made no point about the treaty at all, I took a swipe at the poster campaign on both sides.
You're really starting to get on my nerves, you seem to have no concept of logic or decenecy.
I made a harmless funny comment which was in no way affiliated with a Yes or No vote and you turned it into me supporting human trafficking. Where the hell do you get off making assumptions like that?
You have shown a complete lack of respect to me for absolutely no reason at all, I wasn't even addressing you or your argument, you just picked on me for no reason, can you not see what I'm talking about here?

If there's a problem, please report the offending post rather than having an argument on-thread - the latter course will probably result in infractions all round.

moderately,
Scofflaw

nullzero

Scofflaw wrote: »

If there's a problem, please report the offending post rather than having an argument on-thread - the latter course will probably result in infractions all round.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Perfectly valid point.
I just didn't want people thinking I was advocating human trafficking or anything like it. Perhaps I set about validating that point too fervently.

Apologies,
Nullzero.

Scofflaw

Brendan Junior wrote: »

Hello Mr.Flaw,

I am new here and I just want to know do most members have nearly 8,000 posts or do some members actually have a social life?

Yours sincerely,

BJ [Mr.Job]
:eek:

And that, bustertherat, will earn both your accounts a site ban.

moderately,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

nullzero wrote: »

Perfectly valid point.
I just didn't want people thinking I was advocating human trafficking or anything like it. Perhaps I set about validating that point too fervently.

Apologies,
Nullzero.

i never said anywhere in this thread that you or @skepticone are advocating human trafficking, im not sure how yee jumped to that conclusion


i just pointed out that the poster is actually quite relevant to the treaty


and by voting NO the EU has no clear policy on cross-border crime such as human trafficking, so one of possible consequence of a NO vote is EU being in disarray while this "trade" continues

as the posters say

"Its rather simple"

/

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, I'm afraid I was harking back to earlier pedantries about people deliberately confusing the words 'Europe' and 'EU'. On the other hand, there's a slight double meaning to it, in that voting Yes to Lisbon means that women will in general be safer in Europe.

I'm not sure many people would take that second meaning. "I will be safer" (your suggested second meaning) is very different to "I'm safer" (the actual phrasing).

If you didn't know anything about the Lisbon treaty, for example, if you arrived in from another country, then if you were to read "I'm safer in X, Vote Yes", you would probably conclude that a) X is some political entity and b) a Yes vote is a vote either for joining that entitiy or remaining a member of that entity.

nullzero

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i got a "polite" pm now as well (pmid=4200390)

I wanted YOU to know how I felt about you misrepresenting me on this thread. You did a real hatchet job on me with what you said.

It's a PM, send me one back if you have a problem.
You made me out to be somebody who condoned human trafficking on no evidence at all, that's just stupid.
Keep your PM's to yourself.
Telling the teacher is still stupid in adulthood, no honour at all, take it on the chin, I've had offensive PM's and I haven't posted them here for people to judge the sender.
What the hell is your problem?

K-9

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i got a "polite" pm now as well (pmid=4200390)

Sorry, PM's are posted in confidence and there is a report PM function.

Bad Form.

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob, do not post other people's PMs without their express permission. If you continue this argument with nullzero, I will ban you.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

I'm not sure many people would take that second meaning. "I will be safer" (your suggested second meaning) is very different to "I'm safer" (the actual phrasing).

If you didn't know anything about the Lisbon treaty, for example, if you arrived in from another country, then if you were to read "I'm safer in X, Vote Yes", you would probably conclude that a) X is some political entity and b) a Yes vote is a vote either for joining that entitiy or remaining a member of that entity.

However, under those circumstances, you probably shouldn't vote.

cordially,
Scofflaw