The best thread(s) I've ever read on the Lisbon Treaty(Warning: Very Long)

Rb

Note: Sorry if I ramble on a bit and for the bad formatting, I might try to tidy it up tomorrow if needs be.

Late last night whilst browsing this wonderful forum, I stumbled upon two threads that really made me think about this referendum and all the drama surrounding it.

The threads in question are:
Great Youtube Video on Lisbon by kev_ps3
and
Europe of Freedom and Democracy leaflet published by free to prosper

I would encourage anyone interested to click through to the first link and watch the video, let it sink in.

Admittedly, I watched it burst out laughing and then went to show my girlfriend the "great video" that I had just seen. It is, without a shadow of a doubt, hilarious.
What is not so funny, however, is that whoever made the video put time and effort into it, and is absolutely serious in not only his beliefs but also in getting these beliefs across to others. You'll note that there isn't any shots of Dublin City, Cork City, Galway City etc in the video, all roaming shots of Good Ol' OIreland, fiddledee-idle-dee music and a wee Paddy voice reminiscing of the times now gone.
I reflected on this and recognised that this person, their beliefs, their view of Ireland and their apparent aims for this country in no way align with mine...yet...we're on the same "side" in this referendum.

Why is that?

I then came across the second thread/second link and had a read through this leaflet that is being distributed throughout OUR country by an organisation comprised mainly of, and headed by, Nigel Farage and the UKIP. Everyone considering voting No in this referendum should be embarrassed by that leaflet. If you haven't had a look at it, do so now.

It is choc full of fabrications and horrific, blatant scaremongering, from the disgusting lies it tells throughout its pages to the images that grace the borders. We see the "EU Bulldozer", bulldozing what exactly I do not know as if they really wanted to force this through in such a rough fashion, it would be done by now. Images of syringes threatening "EUthanasia" and my favourite of all, the sad ol' paddy farmer with the noose of red tape around his neck.

I am absolutely disgusted at the thought of these arriving on people's doorsteps, we all should be, regardless of which way we're inclined on the debate. This is from the UKIP, remember. They are making, publishing and distributing these leaflets at their own cost, and sending them into our country on the side of the "No" vote.

If you're planning to vote No, do the UKIP represent your views? Do you believe them to be acting in Ireland's best interest here, in our economy's best interest?

Similarly, again, does the video above represent your views of Ireland?

I spent the day thinking about what I had seen and read, and how it conflicts with my own views. I took stock of who else is pushing this hardcore scaremongering BS down people's throats. We have COIR, Sinn Fein, Eiregobrach, Libertas & more. What are these organisations actual agenda's here? Why are they opposed to Lisbon? They're not giving real reasons, they're spreading lies and are printing posters at huge costs to do so, why is that?

I had a good link sent to me by Prinz, linking to an article Declan Ganley wrote in 2003 about the EU and it's supposed flaws, which went on to say how we should have an American style United States of Europe.
This halted me in my tracks, to be quite honest. A United States of Europe is exactly what I do not want to see the EU turn into.

So we have COIR, the staunch christian pro-lifers who are filling our streets with trendy posters full of lies (like the heart shaped one), quite clearly pushing their own agenda. We have Libertas back on the scene, who was flanked by Caroline Simons, a staunch pro-lifer and another plethora of questionable characters, headed by Mr.Questionable himself Declan Ganley. We have Sinn Fein who, well, we all know who Sinn Fein are, where their roots lie and what they would like to see happen Ireland and then smaller nutjob, anti-abortion/pro-life centralised groups such as Eiregobrach.

Not one of these group's beliefs align with my own, every single one of them is pushing lies on our streets yet for what, what is their agenda here? Why are people trusting their words? Not ONE of those organisations deserves an ounce of trust, especially Sinn Fein. What good have they done the Republic?

The people of Ireland gave Sinn Fein a go in Europe and look at the diabolical record Mary Lou has made for herself. Ugh, is all I will say on that.

I'm an atheist who is pro-choice, pro-gay rights and have absolutely no interest in an United Ireland at the moment, recognising how absolutely infeasible the idea is for the foreseeable future, how am I on the same "side" as these people? I've never voted for them before, why am I essentially "supporting" them in voting with them on this?

I decided to have a look at my concerns with Lisbon and the EU earlier as a result. None of the BS on the posters represent my concerns, so I wrote to Scofflaw on the matter seeking some advice. As I explained, I am NOT anti-EU and dread to be seen as such. I am proud that our country is a member of this union, though I have said otherwise in the heat of the moment after comments from EU leaders previously, I would not have it any other way currently. I appreciate what our membership has done for our country and what it will do in the future, both for our economy and for us Irish citizens. We can now travel and work throughout the EU pretty much hassle free, that's something we should all treasure as far as I'm concerned.

However, I am happy with the EU the way it is. I recognise the need for a reformation of the structure so that we may have a more efficient EU, however my fears lay in

A: Further "drastic" enlargement
B: Further political integration
and
C: Accession of states such as Turkey.

I asked Scofflaw on all three points and received great answers that have calmed my fears for the future of the EU.

I hope it won't be a problem, but I'll paste the relevant parts as I believe others have similar concerns.

Rb wrote:

I have to say I'm not anti-EU. I recognise the immense benefit it has served our country and economy and will do in the future. I am, however, opposed to any further drastic enlargement, the likes of which we have seen in the past, particularly with regards to Turkey.

Scofflaw wrote:

Personally, I think that was very much a historical once-off. The timing was largely dictated by Putin - up to that point accession for Eastern Europe had been proceeding at the usual leisurely pace, but when Putin started flexing Russia's muscles, it suddenly became urgent to bring Eastern Europe into the EU rather than have them fall back into Russian orbit. In a sense, that explains both Nice and Lisbon - the former in a hurry, the latter to rebalance the democratic deficit created by Nice.

The accession of the Eastern European countries was a solution to a problem - Turkish accession, on the other hand, is simply a problem.

Rb wrote:

Lisbon doesn't actually provide an entrance route for Turkey, does it? I'm aware of various quotes regarding enlargement, but what does the treaty actually say regarding the further enlargement of the EU? If, for example, it were to look likely that Turkey might be in a state to join, we can and will have the opportunity to vote against it, am I right in saying that? I suppose the question would be will we get a say with regards to future accession, more than just through our "representatives"?

Scofflaw wrote:

No, Lisbon doesn't provide an entrance route for Turkey. Turkey could accede under either Nice or Lisbon - a lot of people have the vague feeling that Nice contains some kind of cap on the EU's membership, but it doesn't.

What Lisbon does do is change the way QMV voting operates (without much changing the weights, despite COIR), the way the Parliament's seats are allocated, and the way the composition of the Commission is set. All those changes are actually about making it so that the accession of a new member state is automatically factored into the system, instead of, as at present, requiring a round of horse-trading about voting weights and seat allocations.

However, none of that is necessary for enlargement. When Sarkozy said "no enlargement without Lisbon", he was making a purely political statement of intent - in other words, saying that he wouldn't go through the horse-trading again. A different French president might have a different view. If Iceland applied for membership, it would happen, Lisbon or no Lisbon.

Turkish accession is, to be honest, quite improbable right now anyway. The Economist reckons not before 2023 at the earliest, based on the fact that there are 35 'chapters' of negotiations to be concluded - of which only one has been concluded since 1987, while 8 are formally blocked from even being negotiated because Turkey won't recognise Cyprus - and also on the fact that it's currently opposed by France, Germany, Austria, Cyprus, Holland, Hungary...and large majorities in several countries.

There's no mechanism whereby we'd require a referendum on Turkish accession - we've never had one on any other accession. Given the strength of popular feeling, though, I suspect referendums would be likely both here and abroad.

The short answer, anyway, is no, there's nothing in Lisbon that paves the way for Turkish accession. Indeed, by increasing the acquis, and specifically by allowing the EU to accede to the ECHR, it probably raises the bar to Turkish entry by a respectable degree.

Rb wrote:

I am, however, put off by the lengthening of the term of EU President. It turns a somewhat small role, into an official figurehead. I know they won't have any further power, I'm just uncomfortable with the entire concept of having an EU President serving for such a long term. It is, in my view, a move towards a United States of Europe, something I'm against (yet Ganley is in favour of).

Scofflaw wrote:

Technically, it's a 2.5 year term, extensible once to 5 years - and the current situation is really one of 1.5 year joint presidencies.

I appreciate what you mean, but I also think the EU does need some form of continuity and representation at that level. It can be viewed as state-like, but realistically it's no more so than the Presidency of the UN.

I know a lot of speculative stuff has been written about what "might happen" in respect of the Presidency, but I think the strongest parallel is probably the UN presidency, which is not something that would cause me great concern.

Rb wrote:

In short, I'm against any further drastic enlargement, along with further political integration. If you were me, which way would you vote?

Scofflaw wrote:

Ha - now there's the question. If the two points you raise here are the only real negatives in the Treaty for you, then I'd say vote Yes, on the basis of there also being rather a lot of good things in the Treaty. Lisbon isn't needed for Turkish accession, and I doubt the President of the European Council will be much more than the chairman that the treaties envisage (and whose duties they lay out in reasonable detail). I don't think another drastic enlargement is possible, let alone probable.

I digested these answers and realised that he's absolutely right. Although Lisbon does further political integration, something I amn't pushed about, it does an awful lot of good for the Union and the way the Union works. Have the EU screwed us over before? No, I don't believe they have.

Turkey is a big issue for me, but only because I've made it such. Is it likely that Turkey is going to be in the union any time soon? No, it's not and Lisbon isn't really going to do much one way or the other.

Lisbon also puts in place, for the first time, the mechanism for withdrawing from the EU, should we decide to. So, should things go in a direction we don't want it to, we can withdraw and latch back on to the UK essentially.

We should vote Yes. With the exception of my own, one principle that has been plaguing me on this, I cannot see any good reason not to vote Yes to this treaty.

But but but, if we vote Yes, we'll be seen to be giving the Government support!??!

If we vote No, we'll be seen to be giving support to shady organisations with destructive, dodgy, regressive agendas such as Libertas, COIR, Sinn Fein and the other plethora of psychopaths that have came out of the nowhere so suddenly, and well funded at that. It sickened me to see the leaders of these organisations claiming the victory on the day of the results last time round, absolutely sickened me. I'm convinced that the very same people would rather see us back farming our own land and attending ceili's than progressing as a country, economy and society.

I would rather stand by Fianna Fail and the EU than I would with Declan Ganley, Nigel Farage and the rest of the band of misfits that we'll hopefully never hear from again when this is over. I'm absolutely disgraced with FF and believe public lynchings would be appropriate, so that statement should say something.

Although I don't think that on the EU level there would be massive consequences from a No result again, I don't really want to find out now, we've nothing to gain from voting No. If the EU want to progress with political integration, they're going to do it and if we don't like what's happening, at least now we'll be able to leave legally. Besides, we'll all probably be dead before it could actually affect our lives in any drastic way as long as democracy still holds the reigns.

So, I will be voting Yes on October 2nd and I encourage any other No voters who find themselves in a similar predicament to do so also. Look at who is pushing the No vote, think why they're doing it and ask yourself do their ambitions for this country and the EU align with yours. If they do, then I feel sorry for you but if they don't, then I can only encourage you to vote Yes on this treaty. We need to put this past us and move on, if anything this whole debacle has shown us it's that political decisions at this level should not come down to the whim's and moods of people who aren't arsed to even look into the topic at hand (both sides are equally guilty of this, I will still maintain that). That video I linked is what I would deem a perfect example of someone without a clue trying to get involved in politics.

I think pride almost got the best of me after Lisbon I hence why I have maintained my position.

So thanks to Scofflaw and Prinz in particular for the information I needed to re-think my position on this and I hope it can also help others in a similar frame of mind, and I'm sure there's many of them. Have to thank Free To Prosper and Kev_PS3 also for giving me that little knock over the edge to think to myself "wtf am I doing here with this crowd of lunatics".

And sure if I'm wrong there's always Canada.

Rb.

IrishSerf

Good read and fair play for putting in the time. This debate is going to ramble on long after the voting ends. There is an abundance of knowlegable folk on both sides of the argument on Boards and it makes great reading for us mere mortals.

meglome

Great post and a lot of effort. It's easy to become entrenched in the debate and get the handbags out, I'm sure most of us have done it at some stage. Hopefully at some point the truth will shine and the rest won't matter. Around the country the debate has been terrible, the Yes side using rubbish slogans and the No side lying and using rubbish slogans. There's also been basically an orchestrated campaign by some No voters, using multiple logins, to make every thread about how evil the EU are, which is a real pity. I don't think the EU has ever tried to intentionally steer us wrong, will that make the Lisbon treaty perfect, well no it won't. However it is a good treaty that contains many useful reforms, some badly needed which is why it's such a pity that some people just take a side and stick to it no matter what.

Honesty should always be respected in my book, so thanks for that.

BlitzKrieg

....


I have to admit

I was almost brought to tears by the end of that. Its rare to see someone logically balance up lisbon and associated issues and make a decision from it.

I will freely admit I had you pegged roughly somewhere around the same area of futuretaoiseach, a sort of old gaurd for the no vote who would pop in every now and then keep the fight going and then disapear not caring about the responses.

I apoligise

I had you pegged completely wrong. And I am sorry about that. I am happy that you have come to your own opinion while also keeping your ears open to to the discussions on the issue.

Piste

I normally get bored after the first paragraph of long threads but this held my attention. It was interesting to see your stance swing around when you considered the facts. Scofflaw seems like a mighty knowledgeable fellow, it was very good of him to address your concerns so thoroughly, and both of you were so cordial.

Rb

Thanks guys, I'll reply properly in the morning

PopeBuckfastXVI

Thanks for an interesting, thought provoking view into your journey.

prinz

Rb wrote: »

So thanks to Scofflaw and Prinz in particular for the information I needed to re-think my position on this and I hope it can also help others in a similar frame of mind...
Rb.

Getting a good mention in the same sentence as Scofflaw ftw \o/
Fair play though for actually giving due attention to arguments. Spread the word.



.........and welcome to the dark side muwahahahaha
<.<
>.>

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

Nice post RB

oscarBravo

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I had you pegged completely wrong. And I am sorry about that.

I'm going to put my hand up and say the same thing. I had you mentally pigeonholed, and I'm going to take this as a lesson to try harder not to do that again.

Likewise: apologies.

Sam Vimes

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm going to put my hand up and say the same thing. I had you mentally pigeonholed, and I'm going to take this as a lesson to try harder not to do that again.

Likewise: apologies.

I can honestly say I was not guilty of that

I always knew you were a reasonable enough chap, which is why I asked you this yesterday:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Does the fact that there aren't really any reputable organisations on the no side side not make you think twice about your position? This certainly gave me a good picture of the motives of the main opponents of this treaty.

Apparently it did make you think twice :pac:

ei.sdraob

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm going to put my hand up and say the same thing. I had you mentally pigeonholed, and I'm going to take this as a lesson to try harder not to do that again.

Likewise: apologies.

same here I cant believe i started stereotyping people

i made a large cup of tea before reading this

and now after reading this im delighted that

1. your post is not a typical 1 sentence slogan

2. you logically reasoned and deducted from the evidence at hand a position


even if your end result was a NO, i would have respected the fact that you took alot of time to read and think about this referendum



one big problem for the YES side (and yes the posters are mostly rubbish) is being able to get people take time of their busy lives to read and understand Lisbon and come to an informed decision


not helping people and praying on their lack of knowledge or willingness to read is something i accused some on the NO side of doing before in this thread

Martin 2

A courageous post... from any perspective.

Euro_Kraut

Excellent post. Probably the best I have read on the Lisbon treaty. Fair play.

K-9

About half way through, I thought it was going to be a plea not to tar No voters with the same brush as Coir, UKIP etc.

Very good post on how you reached a decision to change your mind. I wish more posters on here, on both sides, would use the same approach.

I have to add Scofflaw is of immeasurable help to many posters on here, on both sides.

Daftendirekt

Great post Rb. It actually gave me a warm fuzzy feeling .

With so much bullshit being thrown around about the treaty, from both camps, it's great to see that there are people out there who can rise above it.

Might just add a link to it in my sig, if you don't mind.

CHD

Quitter :pac:

Rb

IrishSerf wrote: »

Good read and fair play for putting in the time. This debate is going to ramble on long after the voting ends. There is an abundance of knowlegable folk on both sides of the argument on Boards and it makes great reading for us mere mortals.

Indeed there is and it's great that there is somewhere to talk about the issue without it degenerating into lunatic after lunatic toting SF/COIR lies as though they're the absolute truth.

meglome wrote: »

Great post and a lot of effort. It's easy to become entrenched in the debate and get the handbags out, I'm sure most of us have done it at some stage. Hopefully at some point the truth will shine and the rest won't matter. Around the country the debate has been terrible, the Yes side using rubbish slogans and the No side lying and using rubbish slogans. There's also been basically an orchestrated campaign by some No voters, using multiple logins, to make every thread about how evil the EU are, which is a real pity. I don't think the EU has ever tried to intentionally steer us wrong, will that make the Lisbon treaty perfect, well no it won't. However it is a good treaty that contains many useful reforms, some badly needed which is why it's such a pity that some people just take a side and stick to it no matter what.

Honesty should always be respected in my book, so thanks for that.

Absolutely. The behaviour of the No camp and the organisations behind them really drove me to the brink, even recently when I was sure I was going with No I cringed at their posts, at the posters etc yet found myself on here defending them. Indeed, it is easy to get entrenched and lose the ability to look at things impartially.

One thing, in retrospect, I find odd is how I (and I'm sure others) looked past the posters and lies of COIR & Co merely because they're not an offical government party or opposition party, and therefore thought most would just brush it off similarly. However, the truth is that these people see a No vote as a victory for them, even though the organisations individual agenda's more than likely clash with one anothers in a way that they will never work together. Why they're all together on this? Because as I said they've all destructive, regressive agenda's that if they ever had power would see us back selling our spuds to one another at the market and the word "divorce" being made illegal. So, these people should not be ignored and we should be actively trying to not only question why we find ourselves on the same "side" of them as I did, but also to make sure they're not given one ounce of support, or are seen to have support.

I remember when out canvassing for the last local's and running into absolute nutcases who started screaming at me about 1916 how this second referendum is a huge injustice to the voice of the Irish people. Yet, I never ran into such nutjobs advocating a Yes.

I've no doubt that there's some people with reasons/concerns such as my own who intend to vote No, but really people should look past it for the moment and question who is looking out for our best interest.

If people think COIR, the UKIP and Declan Ganley are looking out for our best interests as a country, the people living in it and the businesses operating here, then they deserve to have their vote taken off them :pac:

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

....
I have to admit

I was almost brought to tears by the end of that. Its rare to see someone logically balance up lisbon and associated issues and make a decision from it.

I will freely admit I had you pegged roughly somewhere around the same area of futuretaoiseach, a sort of old gaurd for the no vote who would pop in every now and then keep the fight going and then disapear not caring about the responses.

I apoligise

I had you pegged completely wrong. And I am sorry about that. I am happy that you have come to your own opinion while also keeping your ears open to to the discussions on the issue.

No problem. I did feel somewhat obliged to keep going "No" after I had so much "invested" in it after Lisbon I and the past few months, I must admit.

I think that this time round I've been less active as there just isn't much to say, it's pointless defence of a side that, with the exception of the minority, should not be defended. As I said, there is literally one or two good reasons to vote No but when weighed up rationally, we're just better with a Yes result.

So your analogy of an old guard popping in and out is indeed quite correct, only I didn't bother responding to replies as for the most part I think I just didn't really want to face the truth. Stubborn would be an apt description I think.

Piste wrote: »

I normally get bored after the first paragraph of long threads but this held my attention. It was interesting to see your stance swing around when you considered the facts. Scofflaw seems like a mighty knowledgeable fellow, it was very good of him to address your concerns so thoroughly, and both of you were so cordial.

Yeah, cordial from me, who'd have expected that?

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Thanks for an interesting, thought provoking view into your journey.

I can only hope that it provokes the thoughts of those on the fence & leaning No or those who are planning on voting No for the same reasons I was.

prinz wrote: »

Getting a good mention in the same sentence as Scofflaw ftw \o/
Fair play though for actually giving due attention to arguments. Spread the word.
.........and welcome to the dark side muwahahahaha
<.<
>.>

:pac:

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm going to put my hand up and say the same thing. I had you mentally pigeonholed, and I'm going to take this as a lesson to try harder not to do that again.

Likewise: apologies.

No problem although I can see how it happened.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I can honestly say I was not guilty of that
I always knew you were a reasonable enough chap, which is why I asked you this yesterday:
Apparently it did make you think twice :pac:

It did actually, as it was the quote you posted there that really set my mind off thinking, so thanks for that!

K-9 wrote: »

About half way through, I thought it was going to be a plea not to tar No voters with the same brush as Coir, UKIP etc.

Very good post on how you reached a decision to change your mind. I wish more posters on here, on both sides, would use the same approach.

I have to add Scofflaw is of immeasurable help to many posters on here, on both sides.

Cheers.

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Great post Rb. It actually gave me a warm fuzzy feeling .

With so much bullshit being thrown around about the treaty, from both camps, it's great to see that there are people out there who can rise above it.

Might just add a link to it in my sig, if you don't mind.

Thanks and by all means work away with the linkage.

CHD wrote: »

Quitter :pac:

Lol.

Sam Vimes

Rb wrote: »

It did actually, as it was the quote you posted there that really set my mind off thinking, so thanks for that!

Yay \o/

K-9

Funny enough, I did say on Free to Prospers thread that this UKIP mailshot would do far more harm to the No side, than good.

It is so far fetched it will only appeal to diehard No voters and even some of them will take offence at their interference.

Most don't know voters will be put off by it.

Rb

K-9 wrote: »

Funny enough, I did say on Free to Prospers thread that this UKIP mailshot would do far more harm to the No side, than good.

It is so far fetched it will only appeal to diehard No voters and even some of them will take offence at their interference.

Most don't know voters will be put off by it.

Very true, the leaflet is absolutely vile. I hope it doesn't have an effect on those in the more republican areas of the country, although I fear it might, unless they learn of who is behind them in which case it should backfire enormously.

Playing the video I linked on the hour every hour on RTE/RTE2 would also do a good job in making people leaning No switch I think

Dublin_Gunner

RB - I have now saved this in my favourites.

I am going to use your post to encourage any no-voters I know of to change their minds in one foul swoop.

Thank you for articulating my exact sentiments on the subject.

(and a thanks to the contributors you have mentioned)

Rb

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

RB - I have now saved this in my favourites.

I am going to use your post to encourage any no-voters I know of to change their minds in one foul swoop.

Thank you for articulating my exact sentiments on the subject.

(and a thanks to the contributors you have mentioned)

Great! It'd be great if it makes more people think and encourage them to do the right thing.

Funglegunk

Thanks Rb for your honest account of how you came to your decision. Also thanks to Scofflaw, Sink and myriad other posters in this forum for their calm and rational arguments regarding the benefits of Lisbon, I've decided to vote Yes as a result of these posts.

r3nu4l

tl;dr








Only joking! Brilliant, well-made points Rb. I'd also like to make the point that I have heard people say that they will vote No, simply to 'stick it to FF'. That's madness and anyone even considering that approach should just spoil their vote or not vote at all imo.

ibarelycare

Great post OP. I've never posted in this forum before but your post was post of the day (high five!) so it came to my notice. I've been discussing the Lisbon Treaty with so many of my friends and I have been trying to put across in simple terms why we should vote yes. The thing I'm finding with most of the "no" people is that they are completely mis-informed on the treaty and are taken in by the no campaign's vitriol. In fact, this is why I voted no the last time! I still don't fully understand a lot of the treaty but this time around, I have taken it upon myself to learn more about it (mainly through this forum!) So thanks for your post, I'll be referring to it for the next 2 weeks!

ei.sdraob

ibarelycare wrote: »

Great post OP. I've never posted in this forum before but your post was post of the day (high five!) so it came to my notice. I've been discussing the Lisbon Treaty with so many of my friends and I have been trying to put across in simple terms why we should vote yes. The thing I'm finding with most of the "no" people is that they are completely mis-informed on the treaty and are taken in by the no campaign's vitriol. In fact, this is why I voted no the last time! I still don't fully understand a lot of the treaty but this time around, I have taken it upon myself to learn more about it (mainly through this forum!) So thanks for your post, I'll be referring to it for the next 2 weeks!

if you have any questions dont hesitate to ask in thread

oh and if somethings smells like bull**** it most likely is

ixtlan

Yes, thank you rb. Honestly I've never been sure whether these boards actually do ever change people's minds or points of view. So I too have a warm fuzzy feeling.

Ix

Rb

Whoo-hoo, post of the day, thanks for letting me know ibarelycare!

hatrickpatrick

I agreed with everything that video was saying until abortion was mentioned, at which point I dismissed it and closed the window. What I don't understand is why these guys can't just use the patriotism argument and leave it at that. It's enough for me, as a nationalist, that our sovereignty will be diluted by foreign powers, without the need to add in all that untrue and ridiculous scaremongering BS. Once you do that (in my view anyway) you instantly destroy any credibility you ever had.

moceri

I don'T agree with the content of the message promoted by Ganley, Coir and UKIP.

That doesn't stop me having huge concerns about the power shift when Lisbon Treaty is implemented.

The Yes Campaign have conducted a campaign of equal mendacity.

The wall street Journal describes:"Mr. Lenihan is peddling phantom terrors to scare the Irish people into voting Yes. But in a world made skittish by last year's global credit panic, it's just possible that someone might, at least in the absence of thought, take them seriously. Preying on those fears, in fact, seems to be the chief strategy of the Yes campaign."



This is exactly how Hitler came to Power in the wake of the German Economy slump of the 1920's.

I say to people unless you are crystal clear in your own mind about what you are voting for, keep the status quo - Vote NO!

If the EU was a truly democratic institution, then there should have been an EU Wide referendum.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574412641980083218.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Dinner

moceri wrote: »

The wall street Journal describes:"Mr. Lenihan is peddling phantom terrors to scare the Irish people into voting Yes. But in a world made skittish by last year's global credit panic, it's just possible that someone might, at least in the absence of thought, take them seriously. Preying on those fears, in fact, seems to be the chief strategy of the Yes campaign."

You're basing you opinion on an incredibly biased opinion piece where the authors name isn't even given? I expected better.

Oh wait, I didn't. This is exactly what I expect from the No camp.

moceri wrote: »

If the EU was a truly democratic institution, then there should have been an EU Wide referendum.

Well done for not knowing how the EU works. I'll try put it as simple as i can.

The EU has NOTHING to do with how countries ratify treaties. NOTHING!
We have a referendum in Ireland because we are constitutionally obliged to have one.

Spain is not having a referendum because their constitution doesn't say that they have to. Italy is not having one because referenda on international treaties are illegal there. NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EU.

miralize

This post made me understand Lisbon alot more. The wall street journal says we have nothing to fear from voting no, but as you said we have nothing to gain either..

Thanks

marco_polo

moceri wrote: »

I don'T agree with the content of the message promoted by Ganley, Coir and UKIP.

That doesn't stop me having huge concerns about the power shift when Lisbon Treaty is implemented.

The Yes Campaign have conducted a campaign of equal mendacity.

The wall street Journal describes:"Mr. Lenihan is peddling phantom terrors to scare the Irish people into voting Yes. But in a world made skittish by last year's global credit panic, it's just possible that someone might, at least in the absence of thought, take them seriously. Preying on those fears, in fact, seems to be the chief strategy of the Yes campaign."



This is exactly how Hitler came to Power in the wake of the German Economy slump of the 1920's.

I say to people unless you are crystal clear in your own mind about what you are voting for, keep the status quo - Vote NO!

If the EU was a truly democratic institution, then there should have been an EU Wide referendum.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574412641980083218.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

If you don't agree with Gantleys message then why are you quoting an editorial written by one of Gantleys mates in the European Edition of the Wall Street Journal, which is a euroskeptic conservative paper owned by Rupert Murdoch. It basically a regurgitation of an interview given by Declan himself to to the editorial page editor a week previously.

Interview: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574404643114251588.html

Guy who did the interview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Carney_(editorialist)

Nameless opnion piece that appeared on the page he edits:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574412641980083218.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


The papers editor is a UK Conservative sympathiser.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patience_Wheatcroft

and its paid circulation figures (26,000) are surpassed by the top seven Irish Irish Daily Newspapers.

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=43803

Jan - June 2009
Daily Titles: Figures:
Irish Independent 152204
Irish Examiner 50346
The Irish Times 114488
Irish Daily Star 102884
Irish Daily Mirror 64194
The Irish Sun 96725
Irish Daily Mail 52144

http://www.nni.ie/v2/broad/portal.php?content=../_includes/circulation.php

G_R

Brilliant post Rb,

Tbh i think that Scofflaw should be taking part in some debates outside of Boards. he seems to be pretty knowledgeable and would better represent the yes side than some of the eejits they have currently.

Rb

dannym08 wrote: »

Brilliant post Rb,

Tbh i think that Scofflaw should be taking part in some debates outside of Boards. he seems to be pretty knowledgeable and would better represent the yes side than some of the eejits they have currently.

moceri wrote:

The Yes Campaign have conducted a campaign of equal mendacity.

Do you really believe this? Do you really believe weak, silly slogans such as "Vote Yes for Recovery" are equal to the blatant lies posted in the aim of scaring people into voting No such as claims we'll have a €1.84 minimum wage as a result of a Yes?

If you see the statements and their message as equal, then we have a big problem.

Also bringing Herr Furher into things does nothing for your argument.

Sam Vimes

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I agreed with everything that video was saying until abortion was mentioned, at which point I dismissed it and closed the window. What I don't understand is why these guys can't just use the patriotism argument and leave it at that. It's enough for me, as a nationalist, that our sovereignty will be diluted by foreign powers, without the need to add in all that untrue and ridiculous scaremongering BS. Once you do that (in my view anyway) you instantly destroy any credibility you ever had.

Our power is not being diluted by foreign powers, it's being pooled and shared. It's a union, not an empire. And they go into the scaremongering bs because other people see the benefits of such power sharing that they don't. Their actual reason for a no vote won't convince us so they feel the need to make stuff up "for the greater good". It's called pious fraud

thebman

TBH I always thought your stance on Lisbon was a bit off RB from the posts I read from you.

They didn't really make sense to me. I think its great that you've actually posted that you've had a change of heart. I'm sure plenty of people have changed their vote and not posted here despite being vocal about voting no in the past. At least your post might convince others with similar logic to yours.

I think Scofflaw pretty much convinced me to vote yes too from reading many threads (especially threads by no supporters) and his replies to them.

I think I'd only ever have considered myself undecided before. I was a yes the first time because of Scofflaw but probably still a little unsure if I was doing the right thing. I think now I'm 100% certain that a yes vote is the right thing.

Dublin_Gunner

Moceri - I would of the opinion, that if you are unsure, you should vote Yes, unless you can find something that really convinces you that you should vote no.

By this, I mean you should check the actual treaty yourself, not rely on papers or biased media sources.

It's merely selfish to possibly drag the whole country down because of ignorance.

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw is actually for me an example of a yes campaigner whose views pushed me further towards voting no, but I guess arguments can have different effects on people...

BlitzKrieg

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Scofflaw is actually for me an example of a yes campaigner whose views pushed me further towards voting no, but I guess arguments can have different effects on people...

just out of curiosity what exactly about scofflaw pushes you towards no?

marco_polo

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

just out of curiosity what exactly about scofflaw pushes you towards no?

I think it is mainly because he does not share the deeply ingrained nationalistic viewpoint that anything less than total control for Ireland over alll its affairs equals a Federal Superstate.

Hitman Actual

I think if someome fails to be swayed by the arguments of Scofflaw, then the part of their brain that deals with logic and rationality performs very poorly.

@Rb, I always found your posts on here somewhat at odds with the reasonable, logical poster I know from the Poker forum. Sometimes it's like you were on uber-tilt, or something. Outstanding post in any case!

Sam Vimes

Hitman Actual wrote: »

I think if someome fails to be swayed by the arguments of Scofflaw, then the part of their brain that deals with logic and rationality performs very poorly.

I'd have to agree. After Lisbon I think Scofflaw should be made emperor of the new European super state he will have helped create :pac:

nesf

Rb wrote: »

Do you really believe this? Do you really believe weak, silly slogans such as "Vote Yes for Recovery" are equal to the blatant lies posted in the aim of scaring people into voting No such as claims we'll have a €1.84 minimum wage as a result of a Yes?

If you see the statements and their message as equal, then we have a big problem.

Wasn't I explaining this to you last week?

Rb

nesf wrote: »

Wasn't I explaining this to you last week?

Indeed you did mention it. I still understand where I was coming from, but now see things a bit more clearly tbh.

nesf

Rb wrote: »

Indeed you did mention it. I still understand where I was coming from, but now see things a bit more clearly tbh.

You had a point, in the broad sense vague slogans and factual lies can both be false, misleading or playing loose with the truth, but in the narrow sense it's really hard to hold up a vague slogan like "Vote Yes for Jobs!" and a complete and utter fabrication like "Vote No to stop Abortion and Euthanasia being brought in!" and say they're the one and the same.

Rb

nesf wrote: »

You had a point, in the broad sense vague slogans and factual lies can both be false, misleading or playing loose with the truth, but in the narrow sense it's really hard to hold up a vague slogan like "Vote Yes for Jobs!" and a complete and utter fabrication like "Vote No to stop Abortion and Euthanasia being brought in!" and say they're the one and the same.

I don't think I could be accused of holding the posters as equal, but I was incorrectly weighing the FF/FG posters as being of more importance and of more impact than Coir. In retrospect, the fact that FF/FG/Lab are FF/FG/Lab will sway more people on the fence to a Yes than their slogans will, however the bs scaremongering pushed by Coir & Co will sway more on the fence to a No than the organisation's place and reputation in the country.

Overall though I think something should be done in future to prevent campaigns like we've seen in these two referendums. If either side cannot sell their opinion based on the facts of the text itself, they shouldn't be allowed advertise.

Scofflaw

Rb wrote: »

I don't think I could be accused of holding the posters as equal, but I was incorrectly weighing the FF/FG posters as being of more importance and of more impact than Coir. In retrospect, the fact that FF/FG/Lab are FF/FG/Lab will sway more people on the fence to a Yes than their slogans will, however the bs scaremongering pushed by Coir & Co will sway more on the fence to a No than the organisation's place and reputation in the country.

Overall though I think something should be done in future to prevent campaigns like we've seen in these two referendums. If either side cannot sell their opinion based on the facts of the text itself, they shouldn't be allowed advertise.

I agree with that. I've proposed elsewhere that campaigning on the issue be banned, and the issue put before the people solely by the Referendum Commission. Anything we put to referendum is almost by definition too important to be left to politicians.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Rb

Scofflaw wrote: »

I agree with that. I've proposed elsewhere that campaigning on the issue be banned, and the issue put before the people solely by the Referendum Commission. Anything we put to referendum is almost by definition too important to be left to politicians.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm too young to remember the referendum on previous treaties, have they always been this bad with regards to campaigning/advertising?

Has such a motion been proposed before?

Scofflaw

Rb wrote: »

I'm too young to remember the referendum on previous treaties, have they always been this bad with regards to campaigning/advertising?

Some of them have been worse. Abortion referendums, after all, have people like COIR as the major players.

Rb wrote: »

Has such a motion been proposed before?

I don't think so - or at least not seriously so. I think the government has only really come to realise gradually how tied its hands are by judgements like McKenna and Coughlan - the logical culmination of which would be exactly such a system.

cordially,
Scofflaw