Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The Lisbon Treaty for Dummies

  • 21-09-2009 3:04pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 93 ✭✭


    Hey I voted no the last time because I didn't agree with the Lisbon Treaty at the time. I can't even remember now why I voted no but I plan to vote no again because I don't think my vote should change because we ran into a bit of trouble.

    I am an intelligent person but I know nothing about politics. And the reason for this? I SIMPLY DON'T CARE! When Im watchin it on TV my brain litterally switches off. Is anybody else like this?

    Will someone please explain to me in english what is going on? And am I right to vote no. I might not vote at all but thats a wasted vote & I don't believe in that either...
    Tagged:


«134

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    chachabinx wrote: »
    Will someone please explain to me in english what is going on? And am I right to vote no. I might not vote at all but thats a wasted vote & I don't believe in that either...
    I'm likely to vote no in the upcoming referendum but I think you should research things for yourself before voting one way or the other.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 93 ✭✭chachabinx


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    I'm likely to vote no in the upcoming referendum but I think you should research things for yourself before voting one way or the other.

    Sorry I should have mentioned that its the fancy lingo that is my main problem.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13 Lunar_Wire


    I voted no the last time, there is more reason to vote no now.
    They are trying to bully us to vote yes. After the vote the government were already trying to tell us we voted the wrong way. They were seeking ways to make us vote again. They had EU leaders coming over trying to determine why we voted no. I feel that was to determine the best way to manipulate us to vote yes.
    For me it's now a matter of principle. They have completely not listened to what the Irish people have said. It astounds me that opinion poles are heading for a yes! We are not being respected or listened to. We should vote no on this principle alone.
    It's not a vote on Jobs, not a vote on EU membership and it is not a vote on the economy. Don't be frightened into changing your vote.
    At this stage I really don't care what the legislation does. The fact that the majority voted no, but the elite want it through, is the sole reason we're being made vote again.
    The government must go. Vote No!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 228 ✭✭r0nanf


    Lunar_Wire wrote: »
    At this stage I really don't care what the legislation does. The fact that the majority voted no, but the elite want it through, is the sole reason we're being made vote again.
    The government must go. Vote No!

    Our relationship with Europe should not be compromised because you think our government should go. I want them gone as much as the next person but I would never advocate ignoring the purpose of the vote and trying to remove the government through it. They won't get the budget through (and/or possibly NAMA) anyway so they'll be gone soon enough. Vote no because you understand the pros and cons, but not out of spite.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,907 ✭✭✭LostinBlanch


    Here's a link to the Referendum Commission site on Lisbon.

    They're bound by law to put forward both sides of the argument for everyone to understand before voting.

    So whatever way you're voting, take a look at the site and see if it doesn't give you a clearer picture.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭Diarmuid


    Lunar_Wire wrote: »
    No means no
    Not always


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭carlmango11


    chachabinx wrote: »
    Hey I voted no the last time because I didn't agree with the Lisbon Treaty at the time. I can't even remember now why I voted no but I plan to vote no again because I don't think my vote should change because we ran into a bit of trouble.

    I am an intelligent person but I know nothing about politics. And the reason for this? I SIMPLY DON'T CARE! When Im watchin it on TV my brain litterally switches off. Is anybody else like this?

    Will someone please explain to me in english what is going on? And am I right to vote no. I might not vote at all but thats a wasted vote & I don't believe in that either...

    If you don't understand it, don't vote. You shouldn't make an important decision on something you don't understand. ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1 willow_d_whisp


    Well if we don't know what's in it - it's probably because it's not being explained properly. Undoubtedly there are reasons for not explaining the treaty in simple terms. Better off to vote 'no' to keep the status quo if you don't know what is in the treaty. Because if you don't vote at all and then 'yes' is the result a new situation arises and the Irish Constitution is altered.

    Was reading in the paper today that the Labour T.D. Jan O Sullivan had a major reaction to what happened to the DELL jobs in Limerick. Seemingly the E.U. helped relocate the DELL jobs to Lodz Poland (E.U. gave 54.5 million of a grant to aid this), whereas the E.U. gave 14.8 million euro so that all the Irish DELL workers who were laid off would be 'retrained'. I think the 15 million won't last long in terms of re-training the Irish worker - there's little chance of new employment. Thought that quite strange.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 71 ✭✭saol alainn


    Lunar_Wire wrote: »
    I voted no the last time, there is more reason to vote no now.
    They are trying to bully us to vote yes. After the vote the government were already trying to tell us we voted the wrong way. They were seeking ways to make us vote again. They had EU leaders coming over trying to determine why we voted no. I feel that was to determine the best way to manipulate us to vote yes.
    For me it's now a matter of principle. They have completely not listened to what the Irish people have said. It astounds me that opinion poles are heading for a yes! We are not being respected or listened to. We should vote no on this principle alone.
    It's not a vote on Jobs, not a vote on EU membership and it is not a vote on the economy. Don't be frightened into changing your vote.
    At this stage I really don't care what the legislation does. The fact that the majority voted no, but the elite want it through, is the sole reason we're being made vote again.
    The government must go. Vote No!

    While I agree that it's not a vote on jobs, EU membership, etc., I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the bold bit. I know the irish people said no, but what did they say no to? About what in the treaty, exactly? I don't trust politicians, of any shade or creed, any more than anyone else does. But should people say no just for the sake of saying no? Also I believe the government can only be ousted at a general election. How will voting no get rid of them? Just by forcing them into an election? Is there a guarantee that that would happen? And what then? Virtually every party is hankering for a yes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 71 ✭✭saol alainn


    ...........
    Was reading in the paper today that the Labour T.D. Jan O Sullivan had a major reaction to what happened to the DELL jobs in Limerick. Seemingly the E.U. helped relocate the DELL jobs to Lodz Poland (E.U. gave 54.5 million of a grant to aid this), whereas the E.U. gave 14.8 million euro so that all the Irish DELL workers who were laid off would be 'retrained'. I think the 15 million won't last long in terms of re-training the Irish worker - there's little chance of new employment. Thought that quite strange.

    Yes, I think it strange, too. I don't know of any other instance where the EU helped finance the relocation of a private company, or for re-training purposes. Did the Waterford crystal people, among thousands of others, get anything? I also thought it was illegal for a government to help, financially, any private company, so why should it be OK for the EU? Isn't it breaking its own rules? The reason it gave "..because Lodz has exceptionally high unemployment" (sic) is ridiculous. Where's the logic in that? They're just shifting unemployment elsewhere.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 268 ✭✭Martin 2


    Originally Posted by willow_d_whisp
    ...........
    Was reading in the paper today that the Labour T.D. Jan O Sullivan had a major reaction to what happened to the DELL jobs in Limerick. Seemingly the E.U. helped relocate the DELL jobs to Lodz Poland (E.U. gave 54.5 million of a grant to aid this), whereas the E.U. gave 14.8 million euro so that all the Irish DELL workers who were laid off would be 'retrained'. I think the 15 million won't last long in terms of re-training the Irish worker - there's little chance of new employment. Thought that quite strange.
    Yes, I think it strange, too. I don't know of any other instance where the EU helped finance the relocation of a private company, or for re-training purposes. Did the Waterford crystal people, among thousands of others, get anything? I also thought it was illegal for a government to help, financially, any private company, so why should it be OK for the EU? Isn't it breaking its own rules? The reason it gave "..because Lodz has exceptionally high unemployment" (sic) is ridiculous. Where's the logic in that? They're just shifting unemployment elsewhere.

    Saol Alainn, willow_d_whisp’s post is completely wrong, the EU did not give Dell €54.5 million to help relocate to Poland, see link , in fact all they did was to allow the Polish government to give a €54 million grant to Dell, so the EU has given the ex Irish Dell workers €14.8million and nothing to the Polish operation. The Irish government has grant aided the establishment of similar FDI projects in Ireland.


    .


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,403 ✭✭✭passive


    http://www.jasonomahony.ie/The_Improved_Spoofers_Guide_To_The_Lisbon_Treaty.pdf

    Voila... Read it, consider it, decide whether it makes more sense to you than some of the insane ramblings above and lies on posters.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 71 ✭✭saol alainn


    Martin 2 wrote: »

    Saol Alainn, willow_d_whisp’s post is completely wrong, the EU did not give Dell €54.5 million to help relocate to Poland, see link , in fact all they did was to allow the Polish government to give a €54 million grant to Dell, so the EU has given the ex Irish Dell workers €14.8million and nothing to the Polish operation. The Irish government has grant aided the establishment of similar FDI projects in Ireland.


    .

    Thanks, Martin. Indeed, I too got it wrong when I heard the news. :o


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 943 ✭✭✭OldJay


    chachabinx wrote: »
    Hey I voted no the last time because I didn't agree with the Lisbon Treaty at the time. I can't even remember now why I voted no but I plan to vote no again because I don't think my vote should change because we ran into a bit of trouble.
    You voted against the Treaty last time around, don't actually know why and will do the same this time around because you still don't know why and think this 'view' should remain unchanged?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Justind wrote: »
    You voted against the Treaty last time around, don't actually know why and will do the same this time around because you still don't know why and think this 'view' should remain unchanged?

    its amazing aint it?

    with so much impartial information being available (see sig)

    some people still try to claim ignorance :(

    no wonder this country is in so much ****, some people dont care, and when their ignorance backfires they scream murder


    /


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    Hmmm, I understand your frustration there, but I’m not convinced that all this information being bantered about is all that impartial. The fact that any one of us can arrive at such diametrically opposed opinions, over the contents of the same document, sets alarms off in my mind.

    It must be remembered that it is the treaty itself we’re being asked to vote on, not someone else’s analysis of it, or our own perhaps wishful interpretations. It is in essence a contract. And a contract needs to be clear, and absent of ambiguity for there to be full disclosure. It has to be straightforward, in other words, it can’t be open to interpretation or you simply don’t know what you’re signing up for.

    People do not normally sign contracts that they’re suspicious about, that they’ve not fully understood, or that are ambiguous and open to interpretation. Most people don’t unless they’re mentally impaired, or they’re in some other way compromised and/or coerced.

    Think about it. Forget for a moment everything we’ve heard about the Lisbon Treaty, forget everything we ‘think’ we know and imagine a salesman knocks on your door, and says,

    “I have a great contract for you; sign this, and it’ll change your life for the better. Immeasurably!”

    “Feck off, not interested.”

    “Wait!” He hands you a document, it’s massive, a 349 page tome, running on for 67,850 words – and grins, “Just sign here.”

    “Hmmm, European Constitution? I dunno, haven’t we already got our own?”

    “This one’s far superior to ours.”

    “What’s it say, exactly?”

    He smiles, “Nothing to worry about, the government are all in favour it. Just sign it.”

    “And did they… read it?” you ask, overwhelmed by the sheer complexity of the text.

    He flashes you an awkward sideways squint, “Eh-hem, well, no, they didn’t actually read it, but that’s okay – it’s just a document that’ll give you HUGE benefits and privileges, like blah, blah, blah…”

    Of course, you wouldn’t sign it in a fit! Perhaps you’d take the document to a solicitor to decipher what it really says, but most of us would just throw the thing away, or use it to light the fire. But let’s be fair; give the nice salesman a chance.

    You take his document to be looked at by somebody legally versed, and you immediately discover that the language the salesman used looks like English, but the meanings are different. Simple words like ‘must’ actually means ‘may’, as in an offer. To ‘register’ means to give away all title, all ownership of a thing to another. To ‘apply’ means ‘to beg’. A ‘person’ apparently isn’t a person, as in a human being, but a ‘corporation’, a legal fiction, with benefits and privileges which can be revoked at the drop of a hat –

    “Why’s it written like that? I barely understand a word!”

    Your solicitor will perhaps shoot you a wry smile, “It’s written in Legalese, and it takes years to learn it.”

    “But, is the contract any good?” you ask.

    “Only one way to find out,” he shrugs, “My legal team will need several months to check and cross-reference everything. Law is a very tricky business…”

    No doubt, welcome to the Rabbit Hole, you’ve just taken the first step into the murky world of commerce. And several months later you receive apparently conflicting advice:
    The contract is in your favour, you can apply for vast benefits and privileges.
    But sign it, and you’ll waive all your inalienable rights.
    What would you do?

    I know that’s too oversimplified and not the best example, given the fact we sign away our rights for ‘privileges’ in most aspects of our lives anyway, but hopefully you get the picture. If a contract suffers from any 'textual interpretation' problems, or you’re in any way unsure, it’s perfectly OK to decline. It’s the wise thing to do. No buts, or maybes – when in doubt, do nought. The onus is not on you to do anything at all.

    And if the salesman returns to your door a second time, with yet another one of his contracts,

    “Again? Didn’t I tell ya the last time, NO!”

    “I know,” he grins, “But the last contract was just too complicated. I’ve another one for you! It’s different this time.”

    You pause, study his earnest smile, “Different, how different?”

    “I’ve revised it; I’ve even made it shorter and easier for you to understand. Look.”

    He hands you another tome, you look. Lisbon Treaty. And true enough, this new ‘revised’ version appears a little smaller, 287 pages this time, and yet consists of 76,250 words? Evidently, he’s merely reduced the font size of the text, to accommodate the higher word count on a lower page count.

    “Sign it,” he says, “Go on, trust me. This new treaty is even better than the last! I promise…”

    I reckon that’s basically what most of us are going on, ‘promises’, and yeah, agreed, a certain amount of fear-mongering from both sides.

    Anyway, just something to think about…


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭eightyfish


    Well if we don't know what's in it - it's probably because it's not being explained properly. Undoubtedly there are reasons for not explaining the treaty in simple terms. Better off to vote 'no' to keep the status quo if you don't know what is in the treaty.

    Are you serious? RTE explained it, the refferendum comission explained it, all impartially. There have been dozens of debates on the radio, on TV, in newspapers. How many options do you want for finding out about the treaty? Opposing progress because of ignorance is inexcusable. Inform yourself then vote. It's not very difficult.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Hmmm, I understand your frustration there, but I’m not convinced that all this information being bantered about is all that impartial.

    are you seriously claiming that Referendum Commision's website is not impartial :eek:

    sigh :(


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    “Wait!” He hands you a document, it’s massive, a 349 page tome, running on for 67,850 words – and grins, “Just sign here.”
    I know I have the advantage of being able to read quicker than the average but then I had a few years to read it.

    So did you.

    You still have six days with the document in your hand and a wealth of explanatory material before the grinning polling station hopes that you'll turn up and say yes or no.

    Obviously I have less sympathy than I might for anyone who can't read something half the size of the last Harry Potter book in two years or more or bother to even read the explanatory literature on either side or in the middle but then I'll freely admit to having high hopes for the Irish-educated voters.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 833 ✭✭✭batman2000


    chachabinx wrote: »
    Hey I voted no the last time because I didn't agree with the Lisbon Treaty at the time. I can't even remember now why I voted no but I plan to vote no again because I don't think my vote should change because we ran into a bit of trouble.

    I am an intelligent person but I know nothing about politics. And the reason for this? I SIMPLY DON'T CARE! When Im watchin it on TV my brain litterally switches off. Is anybody else like this?

    Will someone please explain to me in english what is going on? And am I right to vote no. I might not vote at all but thats a wasted vote & I don't believe in that either...

    chachabinx, I'm reading your post and you contradict yourself. You didn't agree with the treaty and voted no. Yet you say you cant even remeber why you voted no.

    Yet your an 'intelligent' person but know nothing about politics and don't seem to want acquire a base knowledge politics. IF you want to vote you should inform yourself. As an 'intelligent' person there is plently of material out there to read. I'm not talking about all 300 odd pages. There are simplified versions.

    Then you say "I plan to vote no again". The fact is the referendum is slightly different because of the EU assurances given to Ireland. So it's not the same.

    And all this "...The Government must go vote No...." it's crap. Are people that naive to think that because the Irish vote no that the Government is going to leave cabinet,rubbish. This vote is nothing to do with the Government and all about how the EU which Ireland is a part of, is to work in the future.

    I am not affliated with any campaign.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    sceptre wrote: »
    I know I have the advantage of being able to read quicker than the average but then I had a few years to read it.

    So did you.

    You still have six days with the document in your hand and a wealth of explanatory material before the grinning polling station hopes that you'll turn up and say yes or no.

    Obviously I have less sympathy than I might for anyone who can't read something half the size of the last Harry Potter book in two years or more or bother to even read the explanatory literature on either side or in the middle but then I'll freely admit to having high hopes for the Irish-educated voters.

    Clearly there is a profound and irreconcilable difference between the Lisbon Treaty and a Harry Potter novel - but that aside, I have far more confidence in the people of this country to make informed choices than just ‘the Irish-educated’, as you say. Not sure what you mean by that… Being a fast reader doesn’t necessarily make one person more intelligent than the next.

    Anyway, I’ll be voting ‘no’ again, unless I’m convinced otherwise in the next few days. Which I might… It might all change for me if it’s true that Tony Blair is tipped to become European President. Is he? I hope so, ‘cos he’ll make a good supreme commander, and if he grows a little moustache, all the better, powerful, a credit to us all. (Just messing)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    are you seriously claiming that Referendum Commision's website is not impartial :eek:

    sigh :(


    I’m not claiming anything, you are. All I’m saying is that I’m not convinced.
    ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Clearly there is a profound and irreconcilable difference between the Lisbon Treaty and a Harry Potter novel - but that aside, I have far more confidence in the people of this country to make informed choices than just ‘the Irish-educated’, as you say. Not sure what you mean by that… Being a fast reader doesn’t necessarily make one person more intelligent than the next.

    Anyway, I’ll be voting ‘no’ again, unless I’m convinced otherwise in the next few days. Which I might… It might all change for me if it’s true that Tony Blair is tipped to become European President. Is he? I hope so, ‘cos he’ll make a good supreme commander, and if he grows a little moustache, all the better, powerful, a credit to us all. (Just messing)


    wallowing in your own ignorance

    and people wonder why the likes of Dell are leaving Ireland :(

    I’m not claiming anything, you are. All I’m saying is that I’m not convinced.
    ;)

    no wonder so

    considering you have shown in this thread to have a very closed mind, and whats worse are proud of it


    /


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    wallowing in your own ignorance

    and people wonder why the likes of Dell are leaving Ireland :(




    no wonder so

    considering you have shown in this thread to have a very closed mind, and whats worse are proud of it


    /

    Is that the best you can do? Lol! Jeez… if yer gonna insult me, at least do so. That comment says more about you than me, mate.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Is that the best you can do? Lol! Jeez… if yer gonna insult me, at least do so. That comment says more about you than me, mate.

    Im not the one here being proud of keeping oneself in the dark

    its hard to respect someone who has no respect for oneself

    anyways its your choice, but dont be forcing your beliefs which are based on ignorance and self disrespect on others by posting here


    /


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    Clearly there is a profound and irreconcilable difference between the Lisbon Treaty and a Harry Potter novel
    There is. I rather hope that both can be read in under two years though by anyone, or at least the simpler explanatory documents. There are plenty of them from both sides. And from the middle, even if you suspect that they're on one side.

    Either way, no-one with the ability to read can have any excuse for not knowing enough. There's plenty of information out there if people look just beyond the silly posters. And people still have six days available to read any of these things, if they didn't bother in the previous 600.
    - but that aside, I have far more confidence in the people of this country to make informed choices than just ‘the Irish-educated’, as you say.
    I'm just hoping that they gave things the few minutes to read. Confidence doesn't enter into it.
    It might all change for me if it’s true that Tony Blair is tipped to become European President. Is he? I hope so, ‘cos he’ll make a good supreme commander, and if he grows a little moustache, all the better, powerful, a credit to us all. (Just messing)
    I'm being blunt but that's just stupid, even as comedy.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    sceptre wrote: »
    There is. I rather hope that both can be read in under two years though by anyone, or at least the simpler explanatory documents. There are plenty of them from both sides. And from the middle, even if you suspect that they're on one side.

    Either way, no-one with the ability to read can have any excuse for not knowing enough. There's plenty of information out there if people look just beyond the silly posters. And people still have six days available to read any of these things, if they didn't bother in the previous 600.


    I'm just hoping that they gave things the few minutes to read. Confidence doesn't enter into it.


    I'm being blunt but that's just stupid, even as comedy.

    Agreed, we should take more time to really look into these things. I didn’t vote for the last Treaty/Constitution mainly because I didn’t really know what it was. And also the fact that nobody in government on the ‘yes side’ had even read the thing. That didn’t help either! Lol!

    Like most of us perhaps, this time I’ve tried to inform myself as much as possible, I’ve read the information from both the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ campaigns, listened to debates, waded through websites and so on, but in regards the Treaty itself, the actual document we’re being asked to vote on, I recognise my limitations – I do not know what it actually means, I might ‘think’ I do (and I think I do this time), but I am not proficient in legalese, I am not legally trained and unless we know exactly what we’re getting into, the bottom line is we only have other people’s promises and opinions to go by. People who more often than not have a vested interest in securing our votes.

    And promises can be broken...


    Sorry if my Tony Blair joke upset you; and I apologise all Tony Blair fans out there too.

    It’s apparently not far off the truth though:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/02/world.politics

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100003428/hail-tony-blair-president-of-europe-by-the-grace-of-gordon/


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Im not the one here being proud of keeping oneself in the dark

    its hard to respect someone who has no respect for oneself

    anyways its your choice, but dont be forcing your beliefs which are based on ignorance and self disrespect on others by posting here


    /

    Relax, why are you feeling so threatened? It's impossible to force beliefs on others with the written word, on a thread? All we can do here is express our opinions, take it or leave it.

    BTW. I'm not looking for your respect, you're sadly mistaken if you think that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Relax, why are you feeling so threatened? It's impossible to force beliefs on others with the written word, on a thread? All we can do here is express our opinions, take it or leave it.

    BTW. I'm not looking for your respect, you're sadly mistaken if you think that.

    you are asking people to vote in a certain manner while not showing respect for yourself

    never mind showing respect to the people you are addressing

    the NO side go over and over talking about respect

    but being proud of own ignorance while preaching to other people

    is quite simply wrong


    you have shown no respect for yourself and instead of helping people read up on the treaty you suggest that its too long and there isnt enough time!

    rubbish I and others say, theres plenty of time and plenty of unbaisaded information

    one just has to follow the link in my sig to REFCOMs site

    to read up various condensed version of the treaty

    heres me trying to get people to read the damn thing and come up with own conclusions

    while you are preaching that its ok to be dumb and ignorance is bliss


    /


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    you are asking people to vote in a certain manner while not showing respect for yourself

    never mind showing respect to the people you are addressing

    the NO side go over and over talking about respect

    but being proud of own ignorance while preaching to other people

    is quite simply wrong


    you have shown no respect for yourself and instead of helping people read up on the treaty you suggest that its too long and there isnt enough time!

    rubbish I and others say, theres plenty of time and plenty of unbaisaded information

    one just has to follow the link in my sig to REFCOMs site

    to read up various condensed version of the treaty

    heres me trying to get people to read the damn thing and come up with own conclusions

    while you are preaching that its ok to be dumb and ignorance is bliss


    /


    With all due respect, I suggest you back this up using evidence of what I did say, else at best you are merely sounding off base insults at me, and sounding like a complete idiot to boot.
    And what’s worse, you are doing yourself no favours if you want to get more ‘yes’ voters onside. This is no way to conduct yourself if you want to be respected and taken seriously.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    IrelandSpirit, if you don't understand the treaty and don't feel confident enough to make a judgement on it, why make a judgement on it? You don't have to vote just for the sake of it and both a yes or no can have consequences so why not leave the decision to people who do understand the ramifications of their vote?

    The preferable scenario would of course be that you do your best to understand it and make an informed vote, it's not that complicated but I can't condone rejecting the treaty out of fear. I think this treaty will be extremely beneficial for Ireland, the EU and the world (through increased focus on climate change) and that an uninformed no vote will damage Ireland's reputation and I don't want myself and the millions who want this treaty to be denied it because of people who can't make up their minds and are sacred of change


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit



    Sam Vines. I’m glad someone’s read the thing and actually understood it! Well done. I bow my head, and tip my hat in the presence of outstanding brilliance. I mean it, if that’s true what you say.

    BTW, where did you study law?

    Because believe me, unless you have a good command of legalese, acts and statutes, and commercial law in all its loopy glory you will not understand that treaty. Period. You might ‘think’ you do, and you might even come close on some points, but the bottom line is it’s not written for us. If it were, we could all just sit back and read the thing as easily as a Harry Potter novel, and be confident we’ve fully understood what we’ve read.

    What we ‘think’ we understand about this treaty is not the issue – opinions and interpretations are not what we’re being asked to vote on.

    Just to get some perspective on this: The US Constitution with all 27 amendments runs to a mere 18 pages, and 7,600 words is sufficient to render it comprehensible to most people. The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921, about the same at some 7,500 words.

    The old European Constitution ran to a whopping 349 pages, and consisted of 67,850 words. And as promised, this new ‘revised’ version has been reduced, to 287 pages, and yet consists of 76,250 words. As I mentioned earlier, evidently they merely reduced the font size of the text, to accommodate the higher word count on a lower page count. Why?

    That in itself would immediately put anybody’s shackles up.

    I voted NO the last time on principle. Ireland is a republic, a sovereign nation, (‘six counties short of a nation’ as I’m often reminded when talking with some people, but sovereign none the less) and I felt our autonomy would be compromised if the bulk of our decision making was centralised elsewhere. Mattered not where to me, if that’s the EU, Britain or wherever. And voting to be governed under a constitution other than our own would’ve demonstrated we’re incapable of governing ourselves. Perhaps we are – the fact that nobody in government on the ‘yes side’ had even read the EU Constitution was farcical to the extreme. And unethical: The fact they were willing have their fellow countrymen sign contracts they’d not even read themselves. And you’re accusing me of being scared of things?

    Yeah, too fecking right! Guilty as charged.

    And trouble not my friend; I most certainly have made my mind up.

    You obviously feel this treaty’s gonna be good for Ireland, and I commend the fact you have that sentiment at heart. I wish I could be more trusting, or better said I wish we had politicians we can trust. I’ve seen little this time round to suggest that anything has changed. I trust our government and what they say about as much as a dodgy car salesman.

    I’m glad I came to this thread – The Lisbon Treaty For Dummies – at last I’ve found someone to enlighten me! Ok, if understanding this treaty is not that difficult, as you say, please explain it for us.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes



    Sam Vines. I’m glad someone’s read the thing and actually understood it! Well done. I bow my head, and tip my hat in the presence of outstanding brilliance. I mean it, if that’s true what you say.

    BTW, where did you study law?

    Because believe me, unless you have a good command of legalese, acts and statutes, and commercial law in all its loopy glory you will not understand that treaty. Period. You might ‘think’ you do, and you might even come close on some points, but the bottom line is it’s not written for us. If it were, we could all just sit back and read the thing as easily as a Harry Potter novel, and be confident we’ve fully understood what we’ve read.
    I haven't read the treaty, I've read the important parts and summarised versions and explanations of the important issues and I've come across nothing that would make me vote no that didn't turn out to be a lie. I know it wasn't written for us, that's why it wasn't put to a referendum in other countries and it's part of the reason I don't want to stand in the way of its ratification. It's written in complicated language because it has to be to cover as many eventualities as possible but that doesn't mean I should vote it down if I don't understand it, it means I should find an explanation that makes sense and doesn't come from someone with an agenda

    What we ‘think’ we understand about this treaty is not the issue – opinions and interpretations are not what we’re being asked to vote on.

    Just to get some perspective on this: The US Constitution with all 27 amendments runs to a mere 18 pages, and 7,600 words is sufficient to render it comprehensible to most people.

    The US is one country, the EU is 27. And along with the constitution the US has books and books of other laws. This treaty covers all that too, it completely defines how the nations interact and how the union functions

    I voted NO the last time on principle. Ireland is a republic, a sovereign nation, (‘six counties short of a nation’ as I’m often reminded when talking with some people, but sovereign none the less) and I felt our autonomy would be compromised if the bulk of our decision making was centralised elsewhere. Mattered not where to me, if that’s the EU, Britain or wherever. And voting to be governed under a constitution other than our own would’ve demonstrated we’re incapable of governing ourselves.
    We're not voting on a constitution, we're voting on yet another treaty. Lots of our laws are already made in Brussels. The only way to get what you describe is to leave the EU

    You obviously feel this treaty’s gonna be good for Ireland, and I commend the fact you have that sentiment at heart. I wish I could be more trusting, or better said I wish we had politicians we can trust. I’ve seen little this time round to suggest that anything has changed. I trust our government and what they say about as much as a dodgy car salesman.


    I don't trust our politicians, I trust the multitude of other people, groups and nations that support this treaty and have explained any issues I might have had with it


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I haven't read the treaty, I've read the important parts and summarised versions and explanations of the important issues and I've come across nothing that would make me vote no that didn't turn out to be a lie. I know it wasn't written for us, that's why it wasn't put to a referendum in other countries and it's part of the reason I don't want to stand in the way of its ratification. It's written in complicated language because it has to be to cover as many eventualities as possible but that doesn't mean I should vote it down if I don't understand it, it means I should find an explanation that makes sense and doesn't come from someone with an agenda


    The US is one country, the EU is 27. And along with the constitution the US has books and books of other laws. This treaty covers all that too, it completely defines how the nations interact and how the union functions


    We're not voting on a constitution, we're voting on yet another treaty. Lots of our laws are already made in Brussels. The only way to get what you describe is to leave the EU



    I don't trust our politicians, I trust the multitude of other people, groups and nations that support this treaty and have explained any issues I might have had with it


    Fair play to ya then, believe it or not I’m not here to try and change your mind. You appear to be coming from a good place, and if you (or anybody) feel you’ve received genuine advice in regard the content of this treaty, then that has to be respected.

    You’re right though, in regards the EU making lots of our laws. I realised that too a long time ago, and I’m beginning to suspect what they’ve known all along – Ireland never had sovereignty in the first place. It’s just a word. I think that’s the reason our politicians didn’t even bother reading the last EU Constitution (or treaty – same thing in my mind: contract)

    Our economy is already centralised in Europe anyway, the money we use in our daily affairs is coined by private banks: for profit corporations lend us money, which we then have to pay back at interest. How? Can’t, there’s never enough money in circulation to cover the interest on the loan. Pay with what, then? Ever-increasing taxation, our labour, our resources and infrastructure – until eventually they’ll own everything. In the simplest terms possible, that’s how things really work.

    We’ll never regulate our own affairs if we’re not in control of the most essential elements of our lives...

    I’m inclined to agree with a previous post: as a nation we don’t really question enough, question who’s really in control of our economy, our justice system, our natural resources – the most basic requirements of nationhood eludes us. And what’s worse, perhaps the majority of us don’t even care; perhaps we’d rather someone else had the responsibility anyway.

    :mad:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭roosh


    chachabinx wrote: »
    Hey I voted no the last time because I didn't agree with the Lisbon Treaty at the time. I can't even remember now why I voted no but I plan to vote no again because I don't think my vote should change because we ran into a bit of trouble.

    I am an intelligent person but I know nothing about politics. And the reason for this? I SIMPLY DON'T CARE! When Im watchin it on TV my brain litterally switches off. Is anybody else like this?

    Will someone please explain to me in english what is going on? And am I right to vote no. I might not vote at all but thats a wasted vote & I don't believe in that either...

    If you are not sure then you should vote No, because a No vote keeps things the way they are in terms of how the EU operates. Voting Yes will have no impact on economic recovery.

    Ask yourself, if you someone asked you to do something, and you were not sure about why you should do it, would you do it?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 721 ✭✭✭MarkK


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    Ask yourself, if you someone asked you to do something, and you were not sure about why you should do it, would you do it?

    If all groups saying I should do it included all the major political parties, the unions, and employers, and the people against it were Sinn Fein, the British Tory party, British right wing press and Fundamentalist Catholics groups, then yes I would.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    MarkK wrote: »
    If all groups saying I should do it included all the major political parties, the unions, and employers, and the people against it were Sinn Fein, the British Tory party, British right wing press and Fundamentalist Catholics groups, then yes I would.

    UKIP are worse than the Tories :(


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    MarkK wrote: »
    If all groups saying I should do it included all the major political parties, the unions, and employers, and the people against it were Sinn Fein, the British Tory party, British right wing press and Fundamentalist Catholics groups, then yes I would.


    Hmmm, true, not good bed-fellows on either side there imho, but at he risk of upsetting yet another Tony Blair fan, I suggest you look at:


    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100003428/hail-tony-blair-president-of-europe-by-the-grace-of-gordon/

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/02/world.politics

    All Hail Tony Blair, President OF Europe!

    :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭roosh


    MarkK wrote: »
    If all groups saying I should do it included all the major political parties, the unions, and employers, and the people against it were Sinn Fein, the British Tory party, British right wing press and Fundamentalist Catholics groups, then yes I would.

    If all those telling you to vote Yes stood to gain personally, while those telling you to vote no didn't really stand to gain much at all, would you question it then?

    Even if those telling you to vote Yes are giving you no valid reasons to do so? If those telling you to vote Yes are using empty rhetoric, designed to play on our fear of lack of economic recovery, when in actual fact the outcome will have no real bearing on recovery?

    When those telling you to vote No are using rhetoric that actually does highlight pertinent issues, such as the trend of the EU to favour businesses over the people of Europe, when those people don't have an overly strong voice?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    Forget economic recovery entirely, imo, 'our' bank's in Frankfurt... though maybe if they get a resounding YES! Maybe if we let them hear we’re sorry; let them see Ireland clambering onside they might throw us a bone or two off the proverbial banquet table. Seems to me that's what some people are hoping for...


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7 ferngully


    Ok,,,,,
    I voted yes last time .....
    Because Turkey was about to Join and I was and am concerned with Human-Rights.....

    I was in the Post Office a week before the Vote last time and a farmer in front of me was saying he would vote No because if the Vote was Yes he would have to look after his live stock better......:confused:

    Only 85 people out of 385 voted last time where I live...
    I live in a rural area and the biggest turn out to vote was from farmers.....

    I also voted Yes to push through the EU water frameworks directive......

    The Potable water supplies are terrible and as for the Waste water systems......(Human and Animal)

    There has been a lot of money from the EU for that:confused:......

    Some Catzzzz are getting Fat on the Cream of the EU:pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    ferngully wrote: »
    Ok,,,,,
    I voted yes last time .....
    Because Turkey was about to Join and I was and am concerned with Human-Rights.....

    I was in the Post Office a week before the Vote last time and a farmer in front of me was saying he would vote No because if the Vote was Yes he would have to look after his live stock better......:confused:

    Only 85 people out of 385 voted last time where I live...
    I live in a rural area and the biggest turn out to vote was from farmers.....

    I also voted Yes to push through the EU water frameworks directive......

    The Potable water supplies are terrible and as for the Waste water systems......(Human and Animal)

    There has been a lot of money from the EU for that:confused:......

    Some Catzzzz are getting Fat on the Cream of the EU:pac:


    if you are concerned about Human Rights

    then vote YES

    to make sure the European Human Rights Charter is ratified


    /


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 721 ✭✭✭MarkK


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    when in actual fact the outcome will have no real bearing on recovery?
    Can you prove to me that it is a fact that the outcome will have no real bearing on recovery?
    I'd also like next weeks Lotto numbers, but send them by PM, I don't want everyone to see.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    ferngully wrote: »
    Ok,,,,,
    I voted yes last time .....
    Because Turkey was about to Join and I was and am concerned with Human-Rights.....

    I was in the Post Office a week before the Vote last time and a farmer in front of me was saying he would vote No because if the Vote was Yes he would have to look after his live stock better......:confused:

    Only 85 people out of 385 voted last time where I live...
    I live in a rural area and the biggest turn out to vote was from farmers.....

    I also voted Yes to push through the EU water frameworks directive......

    The Potable water supplies are terrible and as for the Waste water systems......(Human and Animal)

    There has been a lot of money from the EU for that:confused:......

    Some Catzzzz are getting Fat on the Cream of the EU:pac:

    LOL! yep, fat catzzz got the cream. Agreed, our water, rivers, beaches are being increasingly f**cked with everything from chemical fertiliser to landfill run-off, corruption is rife here as everywhere – but that’s still no reason to vote yes…

    unless you mean the EU’s finally banned fluoride in all member states, back in April I think. Which is probably the best thing they’ve done for us so far in regards health and human rights, though our government continues to ignore it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭roosh


    If you don't understand it, don't vote. You shouldn't make an important decision on something you don't understand. ;)

    I would say, if you don't understand it vote No, because that is the only way of keeping things as they are and prehaps giving you more time to understand it, or god forbid, give the political parties in this country the impetus to provide us with the necessary information, and an open debate on it.

    If you are not completely sure about it vote No, it is the rational thing to do


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 721 ✭✭✭MarkK


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    If you are not completely sure about it vote No, it is the rational thing to do

    Actually, the rational thing to do is to either not vote at all, or vote the same way as whatever political party you support recommends.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭roosh


    MarkK wrote: »
    Actually, the rational thing to do is to either not vote at all, or vote the same way as whatever political party you support recommends.

    You'll have to explain the rationale there.

    If I am not sure about something adopting certain changes, then the rational thing to do is not to adopt those changes until I am sure about them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    You'll have to explain the rationale there.

    If I am not sure about something adopting certain changes, then the rational thing to do is not to adopt those changes until I am sure about them.

    in other words

    if you dont know vote no

    :(


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 721 ✭✭✭MarkK


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    You'll have to explain the rationale there.

    If I am not sure about something adopting certain changes, then the rational thing to do is not to adopt those changes until I am sure about them.

    In short, "no change" is not an option, the world is changing all the time, both "Yes" and "No" will have consequences. There is a separate thread on this.

    Anyway, why are you expecting me to prove myself when you have not bothered to prove your assertion that the outcome will have no real bearing on recovery?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7 ferngully


    Well said Irelandspirit...
    It was banned earlier this year....
    Yep there should be no Sodium Fluoride in our water supplies......
    Still so few people know there are two forms of Fluoride-Sodium and Calcium.....
    Toxic-Sodium Fluoride...
    In small doses beneficial-Calcium Fluoride....

    So why in the first place start adding sodium fluoride:confused:..
    Also isnt it also banned from food and drink?
    Yep Hats off to EU for that.....

    I finally had my mind made up to vote Yes after I heard that people were voting No in order to keep animal welfare to a minimum to make more profit.....
    My vote was to balance the one person I heard.....

    In my mind better than doing nothing.....:cool:


  • Advertisement
Advertisement