Stop NAMA by voting No to Lisbon

Hobo Sapiens

The only practical way to stop Grand Theft NAMA is to force a general election after which a new coalition will adopt some hybrid of the FG/Labour proposals. Whatever the hybrid, it can hardly be as bad as NAMA, the FF plan to rob the PAYE taxpayer while bailing out the bankers and developers.

To force a general election, FF must lose the Lisbon vote. I am calling on Don't Knows to put the future well-being of this country before the demands of Eurocrats. The EU can continue as it is without Lisbon. But NAMA would destroy this country for generations.

Stop NAMA - vote No to Lisbon.

meditraitor

Paddy irish man, paddy english man, paddy scotch man walk into a bar............:rolleyes:

PopeBuckfastXVI

Your whole premise is ridiculous.

Voting 'No' to Lisbon will stop Lisbon, not NAMA.

humanji

That makes no sense whatsoever. The government have pretty much destroyed the country and have yet to call a GE. Why would getting a no vote make a different? Sure if people are going to be petty and vote no just to piss off the governmetn, why shouldn't the government be petty and refuse to call a GE?

And what happens to the guys in the bar...

Dinner

Did FF call a general election when Lisbon 1 was rejected? No.
Did FF call a general election after a disasterous local/Euro election? No.
Did a motion of no confidence in the Dail force a general election? No.

You're kidding yourself and hurting Europe by voting no to force an election. It won't work.

Sam Vimes

1. FF are not proposing this treaty, the EU are. It's not a case of "FF losing"
2. An uninformed no vote will do more harm to the country than it will to FF. There are reasons to vote yes beyond doing FF a favour
3. All of the opposition parties support the treaty too so there would be no justification for calling an election over the issue
4. Getting 12% in the local elections didn't get rid of them, a poll showing that 87% of people want a general election didn't get rid of them and a call for a vote of no confidence from Enda Kenny didn't get rid of them. This won't get rid of them either

amacachi

Oh sweet Jesus.

meditraitor

humanji wrote:

And what happens to the guys in the bar...

meditraitor wrote: »

Paddy irish man, paddy english man, paddy scotch man walk into a bar............:rolleyes:

The barman turns around and says: "What is this, some kind of joke?"

afatbollix

shouldent we vote yes so Europe can get more involved :pac:

hobochris

Hobo Sapiens wrote: »

The only practical way to stop Grand Theft NAMA is to force a general election after which a new coalition will adopt some hybrid of the FG/Labour proposals. Whatever the hybrid, it can hardly be as bad as NAMA, the FF plan to rob the PAYE taxpayer while bailing out the bankers and developers.

To force a general election, FF must lose the Lisbon vote. I am calling on Don't Knows to put the future well-being of this country before the demands of Eurocrats. The EU can continue as it is without Lisbon. But NAMA would destroy this country for generations.

Stop NAMA - vote No to Lisbon.

I've never read such crap before in all the time I've been reading posts on boards.

Vote no to Lisbon if you have an issue with its contents, That is the only plausible reason to vote no.

I'm against Lisbon as i don't like QMV, Crack pot theories like this advising a no vote do people with genuine reasons for voting no, no favor's!


THINK AND THEN SPEAK! not the other way round.

Do you even know what lisbon is about?

ShooterSF

OP your reasoning is insane. NAMA is a load of crap but we have to live with it because we made the wrong choice numerous times when voting in a GE. You won't get a GE if we successfully vote NO because the greens know their number is up and want a ministerial pension.
In short, decide on Lisbon based on Lisbon and when a GE comes round then boot FF and the Greens as far as you can. If you must vent do so with FF canvassers going around ATM.

Rb

Genuine Q:

Would you rather we didn't have any banks, and kept our money in our socks? Or perhaps bartered livestock for materials?

hobochris

Rb wrote: »

Genuine Q:

Would you rather we didn't have any banks, and kept our money in our socks? Or perhaps bartered livestock for materials?

it would make going for a pint more interesting

Furious-Dave

Rb wrote: »

Genuine Q:

Would you rather we didn't have any banks, and kept our money in our socks? Or perhaps bartered livestock for materials?

People can't get loans from socks:rolleyes: The banks must be bailed out because they have to be able and willing to lend money. Small businesses are going under because they can't get loans to stay afloat.
Contractors must be able to get loans from banks so that they can afford to complete construction projects they are working on. I live Leopardstown and can see the unfinished apartment blocks in the old ESSO site. I know for a fact that people have already paid deposits for those apartments and stand to lose a hell of a lot of money if they remain unfinished.

bangersandmash

Rb wrote: »

Genuine Q:

Would you rather we didn't have any banks, and kept our money in our socks? Or perhaps bartered livestock for materials?

Genuine Q: Do you believe that NAMA as it stands is the only way to prevent the above?

OP, a No to Lisbon would probably leads to a substantial increase in the cost of borrowing for Ireland - do you see any way out of the current situation that doesn't involve borrowing? And that's before you consider the rest of the economic fallout that would follow a second No.

BlitzKrieg

hobochris wrote: »

it would make going for a pint more interesting

i strangely imagined people sniffing money to work out who's socks they were in before i clicked you were talking about the bartering animals.

Hobo Sapiens

It makes sense to vote No to Lisbon because it's such an obscure document.

It makes even more sense to vote No because it's an obscure document yet one that,when you scan its content, reduces Ireland to being a mere outpost of a new EU state.

If you have any doubts about the actual treaty (and who wouldn't, considering that it is precisely the same treaty that we voted on in 2008), then you might already be inclined to vote No.

If you believe that NAMA is a bad deal for the ordinary PAYE taxpayer or pensioner, then voting No to Lisbon is probably the only way to stop the government from putting the country into harm's way.

Stop NAMA and Vote No.

meglome

Hobo Sapiens wrote: »

It makes sense to vote No to Lisbon because it's such an obscure document.

It makes even more sense to vote No because it's an obscure document yet one that,when you scan its content, reduces Ireland to being a mere outpost of a new EU state.

If you have any doubts about the actual treaty (and who wouldn't, considering that it is precisely the same treaty that we voted on in 2008), then you might already be inclined to vote No.

When do you think the truth and you parted ways? Was it a more recent thing or something that happened when you were young?

Hobo Sapiens wrote: »

If you believe that NAMA is a bad deal for the ordinary PAYE taxpayer or pensioner, then voting No to Lisbon is probably the only way to stop the government from putting the country into harm's way.

Stop NAMA and Vote No.

He he he he as much as NAMA frightens me the idea that voting No to Lisbon will stop it is just hilarious. I wouldn't mind in a way if you were just another No campaigner lying to try and trick people but it would worry me if you believe it.

Rb

I notice the OP didn't even bother looking at the replies, and just came out with more BS with no grounding in reality.

Click

Hobo Sapiens

Rb wrote: »

I notice the OP didn't even bother looking at the replies, and just came out with more BS with no grounding in reality.

Click

This thread is not particularly aimed at the unquestioning Yessir who cannot fathom why anybody would vote No. I am appealing to Boarders who have sincere doubts about Lisbon to consider the likelihood that a No vote will trigger a general election and thus stop NAMA.

The reality of Lisbon is that it would mean the end of Ireland's sovereignty. The issue of sovereignty is ignored by the big parties and the mainstream media who see Lisbon an opportunity to become well-paid apparatchiks of an EU federal state (or 'empire', as Barroso admitted in 2007). The responsible No voter is more interested in freedom and integrity than cosy cartels and irresponsibility.

Whether the defeat of Lisbon will trigger a general election is impossible to predict but I find it hard to see the government surviving a second No to Lisbon.

meglome

Hobo Sapiens wrote: »

This thread is not particularly aimed at the unquestioning Yessir who cannot fathom why anybody would vote No. I am appealing to Boarders who have sincere doubts about Lisbon to consider the likelihood that a No vote will trigger a general election and thus stop NAMA.

I think you're mixing two different things up. There are people in here who are voting Yes or No who have carefully reasoned why they will. I may not agree with all of them them but I will certainly respect their decision. On the other hand there are people who come in with bull**** NWO type conspiracy theory reasons and wonder why most of the rest of us don't agree with them. Then, more often than not, will insult us for not agreeing with them. I will listen to anyone who comes in here with logical reasons (with proper references) to vote Yes or No. But irrational/paranoid bull**** will still be irrational/paranoid bull****.

Hobo Sapiens wrote: »

The reality of Lisbon is that it would mean the end of Ireland's sovereignty. The issue of sovereignty is ignored by the big parties and the mainstream media who see Lisbon an opportunity to become well-paid apparatchiks of an EU federal state (or 'empire', as Barroso admitted in 2007). The responsible No voter is more interested in freedom and integrity than cosy cartels and irresponsibility.

Here's the thing, the No campaign have been saying this since before we joined the EU in 1973 and they are still saying it. Just how many times do they think they can roll out the same lines and we are going to believe them? You have nothing sensible to back up your assertion we are losing our sovereignty (it such a thing really exists to begin with).

Hobo Sapiens wrote: »

Whether the defeat of Lisbon will trigger a general election is impossible to predict but I find it hard to see the government surviving a second No to Lisbon.

How many times has this happened in the past? That would be none in case you're wondering. So I find it hard to believe that you find it hard to believe.

Scofflaw

Hobo Sapiens wrote: »

This thread is not particularly aimed at the unquestioning Yessir who cannot fathom why anybody would vote No. I am appealing to Boarders who have sincere doubts about Lisbon to consider the likelihood that a No vote will trigger a general election and thus stop NAMA.

The reality of Lisbon is that it would mean the end of Ireland's sovereignty. The issue of sovereignty is ignored by the big parties and the mainstream media who see Lisbon an opportunity to become well-paid apparatchiks of an EU federal state (or 'empire', as Barroso admitted in 2007). The responsible No voter is more interested in freedom and integrity than cosy cartels and irresponsibility.

Whether the defeat of Lisbon will trigger a general election is impossible to predict but I find it hard to see the government surviving a second No to Lisbon.

There's a lot of irony in referring to Rb as "an unquestioning Yessir".

Are you here to explain and discuss how voting no to Lisbon has anything to do with NAMA, or are you just here to keep repeating the same point over and over?

cordially,
Scofflaw

greendom

Cure cancer, aids and ensure peace throughout the World - Vote No to Lisbon.

Sam Vimes

Hobo Sapiens wrote: »

The reality of Lisbon is that it would mean the end of Ireland's sovereignty.

re·al·i·ty (r-l-t)
n. pl. re·al·i·ties
1. The quality or state of being actual or true.

Nope, doesn't match the definition of reality

TechFreak

Lisbon and NAMA are totaly seperate.

OP your an foolish to think that by voting against Lisbon the government will fall.

You obviously have no understanding of either topic and are just looking for attention

marco_polo

greendom wrote: »

Cure cancer, aids and ensure peace throughout the World - Vote No to Lisbon.

Sorry, but I love cake so its a yes for me. :pac:

Surelite

Hobo Sapiens wrote: »

The only practical way to stop Grand Theft NAMA is to force a general election after which a new coalition will adopt some hybrid of the FG/Labour proposals. Whatever the hybrid, it can hardly be as bad as NAMA, the FF plan to rob the PAYE taxpayer while bailing out the bankers and developers.

To force a general election, FF must lose the Lisbon vote. I am calling on Don't Knows to put the future well-being of this country before the demands of Eurocrats. The EU can continue as it is without Lisbon. But NAMA would destroy this country for generations.

Stop NAMA - vote No to Lisbon.

This is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard!!!!
Voting no will NOT STOP NAMA.

Nama is needed to stabilise the countrys financial system - free up credit in the banks so they can start lending to businesses again, start employing people again and get our economy back into growth.

GROW UP! - We need to do whatever it takes to fix our country!

the_syco

Hobo Sapiens wrote: »

a new coalition

Good luck with that. As much as people hate FF, the majority of those who vote, tend to vote FF. Sure, you could have 60% of Ireland hating FF, but if only 10% of them votes, it wouldn't make much difference... As it stands, those who vote, tend to vote for FF.

Why? Because the opposition are a useless pack of ****. Maybe if FG replaced Enda with someone who had a pair of balls, who would constantly attack the government, before the f**k-ups, and not after they happen, as they do now, they'd get elected.

Hobo Sapiens wrote: »

It makes even more sense to vote No because it's an obscure document yet one that,when you scan its content, reduces Ireland to being a mere outpost of a new EU state.

As opposed to an outcast?

Hobo Sapiens wrote: »

If you believe that NAMA is a bad deal for the ordinary PAYE taxpayer or pensioner, then voting No to Lisbon is probably the only way to stop the government from putting the country into harm's way.

Hobo Sapiens wrote: »

Stop NAMA and Vote No.

Christ all f**king mighty. Where do you come up with this tripe?

SkepticOne

TechFreak wrote: »

OP your an foolish to think that by voting against Lisbon the government will fall.

Why do you think the government won't fail? Obviously it is not a foregone conclusion that it would fail, but I don't see how anyone could be sure that the government would survive.

meglome

SkepticOne wrote: »

Why do you think the government won't fail? Obviously it is not a foregone conclusion that it would fail, but I don't see how anyone could be sure that the government would survive.

I can answer with two words why it won't fail... Fianna Fail. They have long since stopped listening to anyone.

Practically speaking though nothing is impossible just very very unlikely and has never happened before. But hey it's not impossible that I'll get hit by a falling star tomorrow either.

SkepticOne

I would be very surprised if Cowen survived a No result.

Kama

Agree. A % of No will inevitably be against Cowen, whether thats right or wrong is irrelevant, politics is dirty and contagious stuff. Formally, there's no reason I know of for it to affect him, but I doubt he'd survive it myself.

Dinner

I was very surprised when he survived an awful European and local election result. But he did.

And after that result there was no one to shift the blame on to and no reason which would be valid explanation for the performance. But he's still there.

You honestly think that if a no vote is returned that Cowen will step down?
Not a chance. All he has to is to say what some of us have been saying for a long time; It was a referendum on Lisbon, not the government. He will point to FG and Labour and say that they were in favour of it too, therefore it must have been a problem with Lisbon rather than his government.

As I said before, anybody who thinks a no vote will force a general election is kidding themselves.

SkepticOne

Dinner wrote: »

Not a chance. All he has to is to say what some of us have been saying for a long time; It was a referendum on Lisbon, not the government.

The first referendum was a referendum on Lisbon. What you've got to remember is that Cowen chose not to respect that.

Daftendirekt

SkepticOne wrote: »

The first referendum was a referendum on Lisbon. What you've got to remember is that Cowen chose not to respect that.

Last time I checked, Lisbon hadn't been ratified.

SkepticOne

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Last time I checked, Lisbon hadn't been ratified.

That's because he doesn't have the legal power to do.

BlitzKrieg

What you've got to remember is that Cowen chose not to respect that.

So you expect the man who didnt respect the first lisbon referendum (in your opinion) to willingly end this government?

SkepticOne

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

So you expect the man who didnt respect the first lisbon referendum (in your opinion) to willingly end this government?

No, I was saying that I didn't believe his position would be tenable after a second Lisbon rejection.

Dinner

SkepticOne wrote: »

No, I was saying that I didn't believe his position would be tenable after a second Lisbon rejection.

How tenable was his position after the local elections?

SkepticOne

Dinner wrote: »

How tenable was his position after the local elections?

Obviously it did not affect him sufficiently to threaten his position but then again I would not have expected it to. A second No in Lisbon would be different. As I have pointed out, he chose not to respect the first vote.

marco_polo

Yes with both parties popularity ratings gone through the floor, and facing electoral meltdown, I am sure they will be rushing out to the electorate straight after a Lisbon defeat. :rolleyes:

This thread is starting to make me question the value of holding referendums at all. If some of the electorate here have so little respect for their vote.

Dinner

SkepticOne wrote: »

Obviously it did not affect him sufficiently to threaten his position but then again I would not have expected it to. A second No in Lisbon would be different. As I have pointed out, he chose not to respect the first vote.

So, an election where his party were being voted on (and were punished) didn't 'sufficiently' affect him. But a no vote in referendum on a treaty where all but 1 party in the dail support it would 'sufficiently affect him'?

I don't see any world where that make sense.

SkepticOne

marco_polo wrote: »

Yes with both parties popularity ratings gone through the floor, and facing electoral meltdown, I am sure they will be rushing out to the electorate straight after a Lisbon defeat. :rolleyes:

This thread is starting to make me question the value of holding referendums at all. If some of the electorate here have so little respect for their vote.

You think Cowen would survive a second Lisbon No?

marco_polo

SkepticOne wrote: »

You think Cowen would survive a second Lisbon No?

Considering they still have a comfortable majority. Which one do you think would voluntarily jump, the party on 17% or the one on 2%?

thebman

Pfft lock the topic TBH. No discussion possible. Its a stupid idea and won't achieve anything.

Even if it did cause the government to fall (which it may not as all major parties are pushing yes except SF) then what? What about Lisbon itself, you know the thing we were actually supposed to vote on?

It would be irresponsible to vote for these reasons and its irresponsible to push the agenda IMO which is why I think the topic should be locked. Not a mod obviously though

SkepticOne

Dinner wrote: »

So, an election where his party were being voted on (and were punished) didn't 'sufficiently' affect him. But a no vote in referendum on a treaty where all but 1 party in the dail support it would 'sufficiently affect him'?

I don't see any world where that make sense.

Let me ask you this: in what sense could he be seen to be representing Ireland in Europe after a second no result? His mandate would effectively be gone even if technically it is still there on paper. Moves would have to be made to have him replaced.

squod

I don't get it either OP. In fairness there's plenty of reasons to vote no. This isn't one of them.
You do now have a golden opportunity to campaign against FF's re-election between now and the next general election though.

SkepticOne

thebman wrote: »

Even if it did cause the government to fall (which it may not as all major parties are pushing yes except SF) then what? What about Lisbon itself, you know the thing we were actually supposed to vote on?

But it is important to consider the wider political consequences of the vote. There are plenty of other threads discussing the possible fallout of a particular Lisbon result on this forum.

Edit: Here's one:
"McCreevy: Treaty rejection could hurt nation’s image"
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055686422

K-9

SkepticOne wrote: »

Moves would have to be made to have him replaced.

This could happen with a No, by another FF'er though!

marco_polo

SkepticOne wrote: »

Let me ask you this: in what sense could he be seen to be representing Ireland in Europe after a second no result? His mandate would effectively be gone even if technically it is still there on paper. Moves would have to be made to have him replaced.

So when shall we actually have a referendum on Lisbon then? Considering half the country hadn't a notion the last time, and there is a serious push on now to try to make this one a proxy vote on the Government.

Do you want me to give you a cookie for sticking your two fingers up to your duty to vote on the issue at hand? Considering half the no campaign is whinging about the poor disenfranchised souls in the other 26 member states, this is mind boggling hypocrisy.

SkepticOne

K-9 wrote: »

This could happen with a No, by another FF'er though!

And I think it is there that the government itself could find itself in difficulty though I don't think it is a foregone conclusion that they would fall.