The YES side

maglite

Before people rush in with answers, slow down and really think.


Have the YES side actually come out with a reason to vote yes?


I have heard plenty of opinions why we should not vote no and discrediting the rubbish from the NO side. But what reasons are given to support the YES vote.

I have read that our future in Europe is on this vote but as far as I could tell from the quick glance I had though it, its not like a software agreement that if you don't click yes nothing works.

Have the EU not come out and said there will be no negative repercussions to a negative vote? DID the countries that voted against the last treaty get slapped with a big stick?

So to recap. Reasons to vote yes?

oscarBravo

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61327732&postcount=1

Scofflaw

Are you asking whether people here have good reasons for voting Yes, or whether people here consider the reasons given by the most prominent Yes campaigns to be good reasons?

cordially,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

My top 3 reasons for voting yes:

1. Lisbon will make fighting global warming an objective of the EU.
2. Energy becomes a competency of the EU, hopefully leading to collective negotiation on prices, cheaper gas and oil, and greener energy in accordance with point 1. Ireland has a unique chance to benefit from this given our propensity for wind (and I don't just mean hot air!).
3. Common foreign policy. Gives us a chance to speak collectively to the world when we agree a common policy platform. Will allow us to push our values of dignity for the person, human rights and peace louder and stronger then before. Gives Ireland a global voice, as part of this, we don't already have.

maglite

The latter Scoff,

All I see are reasons not to vote No.


I can and do understand people see reasons to vote YES and while I disagree with it, I do respect it. But the YES campain seem not to be hilighting any of those reasons outlined in post #2.

Now it maybe I am not seeing them.

PopeBuckfastXVI

maglite wrote: »

The latter Scoff,

All I see are reasons not to vote No.


I can and do understand people see reasons to vote YES and while I disagree with it, I do respect it. But the YES campain seem not to be hilighting any of those reasons outlined in post #2.

Now it maybe I am not seeing them.

The yes campaign is terrible, just like the first time!

Labour have highlighted on some posters that I saw that Lisbon makes for a greener EU. That's about it from the official campaigns, that I can see.

To be fair though, I think Generation Yes have been running plenty of articles on their website with treaty related reasons to vote yes.

Sam Vimes

maglite wrote: »

The latter Scoff,

All I see are reasons not to vote No.


I can and do understand people see reasons to vote YES and while I disagree with it, I do respect it. But the YES campain seem not to be hilighting any of those reasons outlined in post #2.

Now it maybe I am not seeing them.

The yes campaign are pretty much useless. I nearly jumped for joy yesterday when I saw two posters, one from the green party saying that Europe has been good for women, workers rights, Ireland in general and something else I can't remember and another poster saying "vote yes to keep our commissioner". They're the first two yes posters I've seen with actual issues on them.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Also, it's unfortunate for everyone that some very loud campaigns on the 'No' side are based on lies, meaning a lot of 'yes' time is taken up with trying to fight those lies.

maglite

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Europe has been good for women, workers rights, Ireland in general and something else

But that is already the case, what will Lisbon do to change that? Its not as if we vote No and all the positives of the EU are diminished.

What do you mean lies? You mean the minimum wage will not be .00000001323c :eek::eek::eek::eek:  From what I can see that is only Cóir, and lets be fair with our getting into it... well they are tit faces.. There ends my discussion on their level

Stainless_Steel

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

My top 3 reasons for voting yes:

1. Lisbon will make fighting global warming an objective of the EU.
2. Energy becomes a competency of the EU, hopefully leading to collective negotiation on prices, cheaper gas and oil, and greener energy in accordance with point 1. Ireland has a unique chance to benefit from this given our propensity for wind (and I don't just mean hot air!).
3. Common foreign policy. Gives us a chance to speak collectively to the world when we agree a common policy platform. Will allow us to push our values of dignity for the person, human rights and peace louder and stronger then before. Gives Ireland a global voice, as part of this, we don't already have.

Ha that's funny - number 1 and 3 would be reasons to vote NO for me :pac:
Number 1 - I believe global warming is bull, there was no cars or industry around during the Earth's other climate fluctuations.
Number 3 - Basically your saying Ireland will be agreeing to the EUs foreign policy whether we like it or not.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The yes campaign are pretty much useless. I nearly jumped for joy yesterday when I saw two posters, one from the green party saying that Europe has been good for women, workers rights, Ireland in general and something else I can't remember and another poster saying "vote yes to keep our commissioner". They're the first two yes posters I've seen with actual issues on them.

Are you saying we will lose or commissioner if we vote no? Otherwise I don't see why you nearly jumped for joy...

Sam Vimes

maglite wrote: »

But that is already the case, what will Lisbon do to change that? Its not as if we vote No and all the positives of the EU are diminished.

It's a response to the arguments that Lisbon is bad for workers rights and women. It won't necessarily make a massive positive difference to them but nor is it the "race to the bottom" suggested by the socialist party. Most of our progressive legislation has originated in the EU. There could be issues more directly related to the treaty but things like "It will bring in the simplified revision procedure which will increase efficiency and allow better decision making" don't fit easily on a poster. Better arguments are being made, just not on the posters.

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Are you saying we will lose or commissioner if we vote no? Otherwise I don't see why you nearly jumped for joy...

Yes that's what I'm saying. Under Nice rules the size of the commission will be reduced in 2014. Lisbon defined exactly how that would be done but if Lisbon is not passed, something will have to be done then to reduce its size in 2014. Not everyone will have a permanent commissioner if Lisbon is not passed. The Irish government negotiated this change to Lisbon so now voting yes is the only way to keep the commission as it is

PopeBuckfastXVI

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Ha that's funny - number 1 and 3 would be reasons to vote NO for me :pac:
Number 1 - I believe global warming is bull, there was no cars or industry around during the Earth's other climate fluctuations.

You're entitled to your opinion, even if it disagrees with Scientific consensus.

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Number 3 - Basically your saying Ireland will be agreeing to the EUs foreign policy whether we like it or not.

That's basically not what I'm saying at all.

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Are you saying we will lose or commissioner if we vote no? Otherwise I don't see why you nearly jumped for joy...

Yes, we lose the permanent right of nomination/proposition of a commissioner if we vote no.

Scofflaw

maglite wrote: »

The latter Scoff,

All I see are reasons not to vote No.


I can and do understand people see reasons to vote YES and while I disagree with it, I do respect it. But the YES campain seem not to be hilighting any of those reasons outlined in post #2.

Now it maybe I am not seeing them.

The pro-Lisbon political parties ran abysmal, self-defeating campaigns last time - they've upped their game this time, but I don't think there's any Yes poster on these forums who would claim that they're highlighting the right things.

Mind you, since a large part of what's good in Lisbon relates to transparency, democracy, and effectiveness, you can see how that might be a hard sell for our political parties. Their inability to articulate these complex concepts, however, doesn't change the fact that they're in the Treaty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Stainless_Steel

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You're entitled to your opinion, even if it disagrees with Scientific consensus...

There scientist on both sides of the fence friend....

And you don't need a scientist to tell you there was no combustion engine during the ice age :pac:

oscarBravo

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

There scientist on both sides of the fence friend....

True, but there's scientific consensus on only one.

And you don't need a scientist to tell you there was no combustion engine during the ice age :pac:

There's a Green Issues forum where you can discuss the reality or otherwise of AGW.

DHFrame

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Ha that's funny - number 1 and 3 would be reasons to vote NO for me :pac:
Number 1 - I believe global warming is bull, there was no cars or industry around during the Earth's other climate fluctuations.
Number 3 - Basically your saying Ireland will be agreeing to the EUs foreign policy whether we like it or not.

Number 1 - Global Warming is bull? The natural course for the next global change is not due for another 25,000 years. We are speeding up the process by about 25,000% For every climate warming fart out of cows ass we make 1000 cars.

Number 3 - Yeah cos our foreign policy is bloody great isnt it. Its the worst in europe. Ireland is still in 1983 because it could'nt be assed to get with the times when it was making loads of moola. Now its ****ting itself because the bubble has burst. It's been listing to Mills and Boon all its life and now it has to listen to Rave music. Ireland thinks it is more powerful than it actually is, it thinks its England. We are tiny. We only have 4 million people, we need more, wether they are foriegn or not. There are more people in Yorkshire, and we dont have the capability of coping as a closed nation in Europe anymore. Ireland is on a knife edge, and we are riding it with our ass cheeks wide open. We are not special, we need help because lets face it, our government a making a meal of it. Our export industry has cancer, it costs too much to run companies here and they are leaving, quickly! Wages are too high! Prices need to come down for everything, in line with wages, our export industry needs revamping, and no one will allow it to happen because of fear. Everything is broken here because no one will allow things to move forward. No one will allow change. Look at the Garda as an example, it's a joke, we need action, we need to move forward and get with the times. Turf, potato's, houses and cars will not see us through. Lets stay as we are. Let Apple leave, let Dell go home, let Aerlingus move to the UK where it stands a better chance.... do you care? I do.

Sam Vimes

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

There scientist on both sides of the fence friend....

And you don't need a scientist to tell you there was no combustion engine during the ice age :pac:

Matches didn't exist during the last ice age either but that doesn't mean there was no such thing as fire. And the existence of fire before matches does not preclude matches from being the cause of every subsequent fire

DHFrame

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Matches didn't exist during the last ice age either but that doesn't mean there was no such thing as fire. And the existence of fire before matches does not preclude matches from being the cause of every subsequent fire

I dont get it?

PopeBuckfastXVI

DHFrame wrote: »

I dont get it?

A. Matches can cause fire.
B. Fires existed before matches.

A+B -> C. Not all fires were caused by Matches.

However C cannot infer D. a given fire was not caused by Matches, due to the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Likewise.

A. Man can cause climate change.
B. Climate change existed before man.

A+B -> C. Not all climate change was caused by Man.

However C cannot infer D. the current climate change was not caused by Man, due to the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Sam Vimes

DHFrame wrote: »

I dont get it?

He's implying that because there were no cars during the last ice age that they're not the cause of global warming. I'm pointing out that global temperature fluctuations can have several causes, just like fire can have several causes, and just because cars weren't the cause of the last fluctuation doesn't mean they're not the cause of this one.

For example the last ice age might have been brought to an end by a massive volcano filling the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, thereby warming it up through the greenhouse effect. But all that means is that the greenhouse effect can occur naturally, not that it is always naturally caused. Whether the carbon dioxide comes from a volcano or a million car exhausts the result is the same.

edit: or to put it another way (from the affirming the consequent wiki page), his argument is of this form:

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

and is invalid because owning fort knox is not the only way to be rich

PopeBuckfastXVI

Because I love it so I'm going to do up another one!

A. It was not raining yesterday.
B. I was wet yesterday.

I am wet today, it was not raining yesterday when I was wet, therefore, it is not raining today.

is the exact same as

A. There was no man during the last ice age.
B. There was climate change during the last ice age.

There is currently climate change, there was no man during the last ice age when there was climate change, therefore, man is not causing the current climate change.

oscarBravo

There's still a Green Issues forum for this stuff.

meglome

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's still a Green Issues forum for this stuff.

Now now oscarbravo we all know there is no such thing as green issues. That's just 'the man' trying to enslave us so his robots can penetrate us... or something.

Daftendirekt

@ the OP:

I agree with you completely that the campaign by the Yes side has been piss-poor.

I also haven't seen or heard a single good reason to vote Yes put forward by any of the main political parties; all I've seen are vague slogans about how great the EU is. Which is a real shame, because there are good reasons to vote Yes, but none of the official campaigners seem to be capitalising on this.

But the same is true of the No campaign, except to an even greater extent. While the Yes campaign has resorted to waffle, the No campaign has resorted to outright, disprovable lies about the Treaty.

It's also very telling, that there hasn't been a post on this forum equivalent to the one linked above from a No voter yet.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's an extraordinarily kind view of the matter!

amused,
Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And therein lies one of the main reasons I'm on the no side. All I ever hear from the yes campaign is this insufferable condescending "we're better than you". And I certainly don't want anything to do with that type of campaign.

Seriously, that's a huge reason I'm voting no. In a democracy, your elected public servants shouldn't tell you you're stupid for voting in X direction. It's an absolute disgrace.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sam Vimes

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And therein lies one of the main reasons I'm on the no side. All I ever hear from the yes campaign is this insufferable condescending "we're better than you". And I certainly don't want anything to do with that type of campaign.

Seriously, that's a huge reason I'm voting no. In a democracy, your elected public servants shouldn't tell you you're stupid for voting in X direction. It's an absolute disgrace.

This is the same thing that happens with atheists all the time. They get called arrogant and condescending and told they "think they're smarter than everyone else" and get dismissed accordingly. But all that's actually happening is they're able to form logical and rational arguments and their opponents aren't, so instead they get angry and search for insults to throw. You see it with creationists who think they're being discriminated against and that everyone else is biased when in reality it's just that their claims have no scientific validity.

So I'll say they same thing to you that I say to religious people. Those who can argue a point do so and those who can't get angry and call their opponents arrogant. Instead of dismissing us as having an "I'm better than you" attitude because we say certain reasons for voting no are stupid (note, not simply the act of voting no is stupid), maybe you should take a good look at these arguments and realise that they are stupid. They're paranoid and ridiculous and have no basis in reality. They are nonsense. The only argument I've seen from the no side that carries any validity is the objection to the increased move to QMV but when I point out its benefits and how it gives Ireland power over the others just as it gives them power over us, they invariably slink away. Some people just have this idea that power sharing is self evidently bad and they can rarely back it up.

As Jimmy Carr says, it's not arrogance, the word you're looking for is 'correct'

humanji

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And therein lies one of the main reasons I'm on the no side. All I ever hear from the yes campaign is this insufferable condescending "we're better than you". And I certainly don't want anything to do with that type of campaign.

Seriously, that's a huge reason I'm voting no. In a democracy, your elected public servants shouldn't tell you you're stupid for voting in X direction. It's an absolute disgrace.

Hell I feel our entire government is a bunch of corrupt, condecending f*ckwits, but that's hardly a reason to vote No.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

O'Morris

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I'm surprised to see you complaining about people being anti-EU. Didn't I once read a thread where you said you wanted to see a conservative party set up that had our secession from the EU as one of it's policies? What made you change your mind about the EU?

ShooterSF

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And the Yes campaign ain't much better, scaremongering and paranoia too. I do kind of agree with you on what the yes side is doing. Though I disagree with your sweeping generalisation of no voters.
There was definite proof last time that some voters voted based on lies and scaremongering. I'd say there were four camps (excluding undecided for ease):
1. Yes voters based on the treaty
2. No voters based on the treaty
3. Yes voters who voted on scaremongering (We'll be shunned/ job loss/ better off in europe etc.)
4. No voters who voted on lies (Abortion/Neutrality/Conscription etc.)

I believe the Yes campaign believes if it can win the battle for groups 3 and 4 it can win the vote. Most in groups 1 and 2 are decided and unlikely to change so they adapted their tactics to what persuaded groups 3 and 4 to vote last time. For want of a better phrase (though none worse than yours) they are chasing the idiot vote. Both sides are. After all a vote is a vote.

thebman

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Ha that's funny - number 1 and 3 would be reasons to vote NO for me :pac:
Number 1 - I believe global warming is bull, there was no cars or industry around during the Earth's other climate fluctuations.

I'd just thought I'd put forward that even if you believe global warming being mostly a man made problem is bull, there are other reasons why its agenda will be positive.

For example, cleaner air in general if we move away from petrol and diesel cars. Cleaner environment in general.

Cheaper energy costs and energy from renewable sources decreasing the likelyhood of another energy crisis about oil.

Oil is running out so we have to make the changes anyway, whether this is under the guise of saving the planet or not is really rather irrelevant. I don't believe politicians care much about long term events really. They are more worried about the energy crisis thing.

Sam Vimes

ShooterSF wrote: »

And the Yes campaign ain't much better, scaremongering and paranoia too. I do kind of agree with you on what the yes side is doing. Though I disagree with your sweeping generalisation of no voters.
There was definite proof last time that some voters voted based on lies and scaremongering. I'd say there were four camps (excluding undecided for ease):
1. Yes voters based on the treaty
2. No voters based on the treaty
3. Yes voters who voted on scaremongering (We'll be shunned/ job loss/ better off in europe etc.)
4. No voters who voted on lies (Abortion/Neutrality/Conscription etc.)

I believe the Yes campaign believes if it can win the battle for groups 3 and 4 it can win the vote. Most in groups 1 and 2 are decided and unlikely to change so they adapted their tactics to what persuaded groups 3 and 4 to vote last time. For want of a better phrase (though none worse than yours) they are chasing the idiot vote. Both sides are. After all a vote is a vote.

Again ShooterSF, just because something is scary does not mean it's scaremongering. A previous post of mine to you on this very issue:

Sam Vimes wrote:

The no posters makes specific claims directly by the treaty, eg that it will make EU law superior to Irish law, that the guarantees are not really legally binding, that our corporation tax can be effected after Lisbon or that it will remove our right to future referendums. Such claims are provably false. This, however, is a matter of opinion. It is to do with confidence in Ireland as a business location and as a fully fledged EU member going into the future. We already pay more interest than our neighbours because the central bank does not have the same confidence in us as it does Germany.

Confidence and uncertainty are not written down in a treaty, there is no clause that says "Confidence in Ireland in the mind of the CEO of AMD will be set at 94% and uncertainty at 3.6% and this will cause him to create 147 new jobs here through a research project". But just because it's not written down in the treaty does not mean that it should be ignored or that pointing it out is scaremongering. You and I both know that this treaty and Ireland's acceptance or rejection of it will have implications far beyond the text written in it and pretending otherwise and insisting on a treaty article that legally sets confidence levels is disingenuous.

Here's an extract from an article in the Irish Times:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0909/1224254135032.html

Mr Cowen said all the main business groupings and the Irish heads of several multi-national firms were “crystal clear” in their view that reluctance to endorse the treaty, together with the resulting perception that “we are somewhat a-la-carte in terms of our commitment to Europe”, would make it more difficult to attract and secure inward investment.

“Those who argue otherwise would do well to listen to the employers’ representative groups, to the exporters of Ireland, to the farmers’ representative groups and to the employers themselves.

“Those who have experience of pursuing and securing inward investment, developing and exploiting export markets, or growing and expanding businesses, are united in their view that rejecting Lisbon will cost jobs.”

As I'm sure you know both Intel and Ryanair have started campaigns for a yes vote. What do all these businesses, employers groups, multi-national firms, exporters and economists have to gain from pretending that a yes vote to Lisbon will help the economy?

ShooterSF

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Again ShooterSF, just because something is scary does not mean it's scaremongering. A previous post of mine to you on this very issue:

I agree that one does not always mean the other. However the yes campaign (as I was referring to) do use scaremongering such as associating a treaty on the restructuring of the EU to our membership. The economy issue should not have came into though. Voting for a treaty because you don't want a CEO of AMD to lose confidence in your country is a crap reason to pass it. Anywho that's way off topic (how many threads do we derail a week at this point ). Would you agree that both campaigns are using the tactics I listed above with regards to the OP's curiosity to the yes campaigns actions so far?

Sam Vimes

ShooterSF wrote: »

I agree that one does not always mean the other. However the yes campaign (as I was referring to) do use scaremongering such as associating a treaty on the restructuring of the EU to our membership.

Can you be certain that the other 26 nations that want these changes will not go ahead with them and give Ireland opts outs of the parts we don't want (or that we think we don't want)? And why shouldn't they?

ShooterSF wrote: »

The economy issue should not have came into though. Voting for a treaty because you don't want a CEO of AMD to lose confidence in your country is a crap reason to pass it.

But it's a very good response to "if you don't know vote no". It shows that voting no is not the "safe" option, that voting either way has potential consequences

ShooterSF wrote: »

Anywho that's way off topic (how many threads do we derail a week at this point )

I will keep bringing it until you stop trying to pretend that it's irrelevant scaremongering

ShooterSF wrote: »

. Would you agree that both campaigns are using the tactics I listed above with regards to the OP's curiosity to the yes campaigns actions so far?

I agree that some people in the yes campaign have engaged in scaremongering but none of the above issues are scaremongering, they're legitimate possible consequences of a no vote

ShooterSF

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Can you be certain that the other 26 nations that want these changes will not go ahead with them and give Ireland opts outs of the parts we don't want (or that we think we don't want)? And why shouldn't they?

That's a bit of a loaded question. How could I be certain of what someone else would or wouldn't do? I'm confident it won't happen but I'll ask you how would you see the voting working with us using one system and the others using another? Though to be honest I'd have no problem with a two-tier Europe with us staying at the level we are at now.

But it's a very good response to "if you don't know vote no". It shows that voting no is not the "safe" option, that voting either way has potential consequences

Possible consequences. Though that example would require the CEO of AMD to be thick enough to think we were looking to leave the EU, something no poll has shown. After all if we can still export into the EU and still have a low corp. tax what should he care about our opinion on this suggested restructuring of the EU?

I will keep bringing it until you stop trying to pretend that it's irrelevant scaremongering

Well at least it's only a couple more weeks. Then we can go back to debunking religious beliefs

I agree that some people in the yes campaign have engaged in scaremongering but none of the above issues are scaremongering, they're legitimate possible consequences of a no vote

So let me get this straight we are now allowed to second guess other peoples actions after our vote (two-tier Europe) and offer it as a legit possible consequence?

FoxT

Arrgh what a horrible and uninforming campaign....

The No side are basically Shinners looking for free publicity + Coir & other fundamentalists of one flavour or another. They are lying about virtually every issue. Evil.

The YES side consist of the political & industrial 'establishment'. They have failed to produce a convincing argument to vote yes. None of them are saying why YES is good, they are focused on why NO is bad. They are trying to use fear to get their way. Evil.

I plan to vote YES this time, because I am in favour of an enlarged EU, and Lisbon will make the bigger EU more manageable. I think the EU has many flaws (lack of democracy/accountability, the demise of the Irish fishing industry, the clandestine free trade with Israel, the abject failure to respond in a meaningful way to the balkan war, etc etc), but by God we are better off with it than without it.

I would love to vote no, as a protest vote against Eurocrats/NAMA/Fianna Fail/property developers/etc., but I basically see this treaty as constructive.

my 2c

Sam Vimes

ShooterSF wrote: »

That's a bit of a loaded question. How could I be certain of what someone else would or wouldn't do? I'm confident it won't happen but I'll ask you how would you see the voting working with us using one system and the others using another? Though to be honest I'd have no problem with a two-tier Europe with us staying at the level we are at now.

Possible consequences. Though that example would require the CEO of AMD to be thick enough to think we were looking to leave the EU, something no poll has shown. After all if we can still export into the EU and still have a low corp. tax what should he care about our opinion on this suggested restructuring of the EU?

I never said the voting system would change, I said that the EU would move on. There are already a few tiers in Europe: the Shengen countries, the countries not in the Euro, the countries with other various opt outs. There's plenty of precedent for Europe making changes and leaving out the countries that don't want them. No one's suggesting that we're looking to leave the EU, we're talking about this two tier Europe that you say you're perfectly fine with. All the CEO of AMD has to do is look at us on the tier on our own and then look at all the other countries that are cheaper to operate in and which give easier access to the rest of the EU because they're all operating under the same rules and have expressed a desire to do so going into the future. It won't necessarily be the biggest factor but it will be a factor that can't be ignored.

ShooterSF wrote: »

So let me get this straight we are now allowed to second guess other peoples actions after our vote (two-tier Europe) and offer it as a legit possible consequence?

Yes of course we are, I don't really see how we can have a Lisbon debate without talking about people's possible future actions

We are not, though, allowed to talk about consequences that aren't possible, such as raising our corporation tax

ShooterSF wrote: »

Well at least it's only a couple more weeks. Then we can go back to debunking religious beliefs

I hope so

ShooterSF

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I never said the voting system would change, I said that the EU would move on. There are already a few tiers in Europe: the Shengen countries, the countries not in the Euro, the countries with other various opt outs. There's plenty of precedent for Europe making changes and leaving out the countries that don't want them. No one's suggesting that we're looking to leave the EU, we're talking about this two tier Europe that you say you're perfectly fine with. All the CEO of AMD has to do is look at us on the tier on our own and then look at all the other countries that are cheaper to operate in and which give easier access to the rest of the EU because they're all operating under the same rules and have expressed a desire to do so going into the future. It won't necessarily be the biggest factor but it will be a factor that can't be ignored.

Fair enough. Well we'll never be cheaper to operate in if we're talking wages, that would be a tax issue which we can both agree has nothing to do with the EU and while other countries would be operating under the same rules as each other we could decide our own to suit a situation. We would still be in the Euro zone and still be able to export freely. Hell AMD might be able to get better rules off us than a large group. Sometimes when a group are playing by one rules and the other it's own it can be to your advantage. Just an example in the EU would be the UK's ability to sink their currency to make their exports cheaper and imports dearer. Of course I'm not suggesting one side is exclusively positive.

Yes of course we are, I don't really see how we can have a Lisbon debate without talking about people's possible future actions

We are not, though, allowed to talk about consequences that aren't possible, such as raising our corporation tax

And where does that speculation end? Can I go through every veto we give up in the QMV and look at worst case scenarios of things voted in and offer it as a reason to vote no? In case?

I hope so

Oh I'll need it.:pac:

Sam Vimes

ShooterSF wrote: »

Fair enough. Well we'll never be cheaper to operate in if we're talking wages, that would be a tax issue which we can both agree has nothing to do with the EU and while other countries would be operating under the same rules as each other we could decide our own to suit a situation. We would still be in the Euro zone and still be able to export freely. Hell AMD might be able to get better rules off us than a large group. Sometimes when a group are playing by one rules and the other it's own it can be to your advantage. Just an example in the EU would be the UK's ability to sink their currency to make their exports cheaper and imports dearer. Of course I'm not suggesting one side is exclusively positive.

Yeah we would still be in the eurozone as it is for the moment but as more and more changes are made there's no guarantee of that or at least that it'll be as easy to get access to the rest of Europe as it is now. It's a possibility that businesses have to consider before investing heavily in this country. It might not happen but it cannot be ignored and completely invalidates "if you don't know vote no".

ShooterSF wrote: »

And where does that speculation end? Can I go through every veto we give up in the QMV and look at worst case scenarios of things voted in and offer it as a reason to vote no? In case?

It ends when your arguments become ridiculous and will clearly never happen. If a case can be made then make it but engaging in whataboutery doesn't help anyone

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

major bill

The yes side argument pisses me off. ive yet to see a poster that would make me think and say wait i dint know that maybe they are right.

some of the yes side slogans

''we need europe'' ok so if we no the other nations aint gona offer us any of their chips:rolleyes: if thats the case then we dont live in the so called democratic world we think.simple thing is we just continue in europe on the basis of the nice treaty if we reject it.

''more jobs with lisbon'' ask any politician and ask him to point out where the jobs will come from and he wouldnt be to tell you.france,germany and what could be soon enough britain are all out of recession and thats without lisbon been passed funny how the government fail to tell the people this.

''a greener eu'' yes which brings more taxes more restrictions, man made global warming the biggest money making/people controlling scam.

the yes side reminds me of that type of person that is always worried what other people think. if we vote no who cares what other countries think it annoys me when brian cowen or whoever says we wont look good to europe if we vote no!!

the yes side really turned me off

Sam Vimes

major bill wrote: »

The yes side argument pisses me off. ive yet to see a poster that would make me think and say wait i dint know that maybe they are right.

You're looking in the wrong place mate, you can't fit the Lisbon treaty on a poster
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61327732&postcount=1
http://www.lisbontreaty.ie/
http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/
http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/index_en.htm
http://www.lisbonexposed.org/

Scofflaw

major bill wrote: »

The yes side argument pisses me off. ive yet to see a poster that would make me think and say wait i dint know that maybe they are right.

some of the yes side slogans

''we need europe'' ok so if we no the other nations aint gona offer us any of their chips:rolleyes: if thats the case then we dont live in the so called democratic world we think.simple thing is we just continue in europe on the basis of the nice treaty if we reject it.

''more jobs with lisbon'' ask any politician and ask him to point out where the jobs will come from and he wouldnt be to tell you.france,germany and what could be soon enough britain are all out of recession and thats without lisbon been passed funny how the government fail to tell the people this.

''a greener eu'' yes which brings more taxes more restrictions, man made global warming the biggest money making/people controlling scam.

the yes side reminds me of that type of person that is always worried what other people think. if we vote no who cares what other countries think it annoys me when brian cowen or whoever says we wont look good to europe if we vote no!!

the yes side really turned me off

Certainly, the contrast between the Yes campaigns and the Sovereign Independent you like would be quite striking.

amused,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yeah we would still be in the eurozone as it is for the moment but as more and more changes are made there's no guarantee of that or at least that it'll be as easy to get access to the rest of Europe as it is now. It's a possibility that businesses have to consider before investing heavily in this country. It might not happen but it cannot be ignored and completely invalidates "if you don't know vote no".

How so? Is there a method to kick a country out of the euro zone or has any EU country in any tier been restricted to exporting into the EU?

It ends when your arguments become ridiculous and will clearly never happen. If a case can be made then make it but engaging in whataboutery doesn't help anyone

Fair enough, leave it with me I'll try and come up with something that could possibly happen and stick it in the sig.

EDIT:
By the way Sam in regards to your two tier Europe fears: (taken from the neo nazi thread)

Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt – who's country currently holds the rotating EU Council Presidency – said some days ago, following a a meeting with the EU parliament President Jerzy Buzek in Stockholm, about the Irish vote on October 2nd “If if is a No, then we continue as before, wit the Nice treaty as the basis” He envisaged no reason for a “Plan B”.

So at least one head of state sees no reason for a plan B and says we can continue as is with Nice. That should be a relief right?

Sam Vimes

ShooterSF wrote: »

How so? Is there a method to kick a country out of the euro zone or has any EU country in any tier been restricted to exporting into the EU?

It's not that we'll be kicked out, it's that the Eurozone that we're in won't exist anymore because it will move on and we'll be opted out because a lie on a poster convinced us it would eat our babies

And this doesn't even have to happen. All it takes is a perception in the minds of businessmen that it or something like it might happen and suddenly other countries look like a better option for that investment they're planning. This is not something I can say will happen but neither is it something you can say won't happen. It's not just scaremongering, it's warning of a possible consequence of a no vote so show that it's not the 'safe' option your sig says it is. The only safe action for those who don't know is not to vote. And to leave the decision to those who do know, whichever way they may vote.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Fair enough, leave it with me I'll try and come up with something that could possibly happen and stick it in the sig.

EDIT:
By the way Sam in regards to your two tier Europe fears: (taken from the neo nazi thread)

So at least one head of state sees no reason for a plan B and says we can continue as is with Nice. That should be a relief right?

If there was no reason we couldn't continue with Nice they wouldn't have spent five years and millions writing Lisbon, which is another point missed by your 'if you don't know vote no' slogan. It's sticking two fingers up at all those people in all those countries who put so much work in

ShooterSF

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If there was no reason we couldn't continue with Nice they wouldn't have spent five years and millions writing Lisbon, which is another point missed by your 'if you don't know vote no' slogan. It's sticking two fingers up at all those people in all those countries who put so much work in

If the head of one of the countries that are so desperate to move on seems to think we can continue under nice then he must see it as doable.
As for the whole people put so much work into it, I built a super ray gun that gives you super powers, well it might (positives of the treaty) or it might kill you (negatives of the treaty) can I shoot ya with it? Oh by the way I spent years on it (timeline having an effect on your decision?) so you can't really say no. Go on?

Sam Vimes

ShooterSF wrote: »

If the head of one of the countries that are so desperate to move on seems to think we can continue under nice then he must see it as doable.
As for the whole people put so much work into it, I built a super ray gun that gives you super powers, well it might (positives of the treaty) or it might kill you (negatives of the treaty) can I shoot ya with it? Oh by the way I spent years on it (timeline having an effect on your decision?) so you can't really say no. Go on?

Well firstly I think you're drastically exaggerating the possible impacts of the treaty and secondly, no one said you can't say no, just that saying no to something that 26 other nations want and that years of work was put into because you can't make up your mind is insulting. If you can't make up your mind then don't make up your mind. Voting no is making up your mind

ShooterSF

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well firstly I think you're drastically exaggerating the possible impacts of the treaty and secondly, no one said you can't say no, just that saying no to something that 26 other nations want and that years of work was put into because you can't make up your mind is insulting. If you can't make up your mind then don't make up your mind. Voting no is making up your mind

Why are we having a second referendum so?