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
Why should I vote Yes?
Options
Comments
-
Firstly, the yes campaign are not making stuff up. 90% of businesses, 91% of economists and the majority of trade unions agree that a yes to Lisbon will help the economy. This is not scaremongering, it's a matter of opinion and one I agree withmangaroosh wrote: »
That isn't necessarily a problem with the benefits rather with how they are explained. If they are related to a persons actual concerns, their attention could be held. While they may not lend themselves to being put on posters, that does not advocate making stuff up, because when those are found out to be untruths, then it only serves to weaken your position, and the Yes campaign started from a seriously weak position with the onus being on them to prove that Yes was better than no.
Also, how do you relate the treaty to a concern that has no basis in reality?mangaroosh wrote: »Why couldn't we have seen a poster that said, we will actually have a stronger voice in Europe. That way people would be forced to question the claim made by the No proponents.
There is a poster that says that
it's a Fine Gael poster. People responded with the whole "we won't be kicked out of the EU" straw manmangaroosh wrote: »Is that what you took from it?
I cast no aspersions on what should or should not be done, merely pointed out an entirely natural phenomenon.
The onus is on the opposition party to show that they have something better to offer, this is why FF got into Government for another term, because the opposition could not show that they offered a better alternative - therefore we went with the "better the devil you know".
The thing is, if FF go down in peoples estimations, the opposition parties have an easier job of showing they offer a better alternative, the onus is still on them to do so. However, if the opposition parties weren't able to show a superior alternative, then you can bet your bottom dollar that it would be a case of "better the devil you know"
The thing is that the clear benefits of this treaty have been explained by hundreds of people and organisations for the past two years. You've been linked to ten reasons to vote yes on this forum and any reasons for voting no are very quickly shown to be the lies they are. Why do you insist that our government must break their 13 year failure streak and suddenly become great at pushing the benefits of a treaty? The government have behaved exactly as I expected they would in this referendum, abysmally, so as a responsible citizen I took it upon myself to research the treaty and found a wealth of information outside the government campaign. Why will you only accept the benefits if they come from the most unpopular Taoiseach in Irish history?0 -
-
Firstly, the yes campaign are not making stuff up. 90% of businesses, 91% of economists and the majority of trade unions agree that a yes to Lisbon will help the economy. This is not scaremongering, it's a matter of opinion and one I agree with
Then this should should be stated. "Yes to Recovery" is scaremongering, because it fallaciously suggests that voting No will result in no recovery. This weakens the position of the Yes campaign, and the onus is already on them.
By reassuring people that the concern they express will either not be affected or has no basis in reality. This hasn't been done for many of the ordinary voters like myself.Also, how do you relate the treaty to a concern that has no basis in reality?There is a poster that says that it's a Fine Gael poster. People responded with the whole "we won't be kicked out of the EU" straw man
"Its simple. I want a strong voice in Europe - vote yes", is the one I presume you mean. Like I said, when this is placed against a categoric statement of our voting rights will be reduced - which wasn't actually an incorrect statement - the tendency is to side with the more factual sounding statement.
As for the "we won't be kicked out of Europe" "strawman", I think that was probably in response to the fallacious argument of either "we need Europe" or " we're stronger with Europe", so to respond with "we won't be kicked out of Europe" is not a strawman at all, rather it highlights the fallacy of that argument.The thing is that the clear benefits of this treaty have been explained by hundreds of people and organisations for the past two years. You've been linked to ten reasons to vote yes on this forum and any reasons for voting no are very quickly shown to be the lies they are. Why do you insist that our government must break their 13 year failure streak and suddenly become great at pushing the benefits of a treaty? The government have behaved exactly as I expected they would in this referendum, abysmally, so as a responsibility I took it upon myself to research the treaty and found a wealth of information outside the government campaign. Why will you only accept the benefits if they come from the most unpopular Taoiseach in Irish history?
The problem is, that the clear benefits of this treaty have not been made abundantly clear to the vast majority of the electorate, in fact all that has been made clear is the fallacies that were being touted as reasons to vote yes. Those Ten reasons that I was linked to, in no way represented definitive reasons for a yes vote, because they were not immediately relatable to the interests of this country, and therefore myself. Also, linked to in the same post was a White Paper by a pro-Yes department of Government, that started off with the same fallacious arguments that had been touted by the Yes campaign, that we should vote Yes out of either fear of lack of economic recovery, or out of unwaverign loyalty to the EU.
I do not insist that the Governement break their streak of laziness and misinformation when it comes to issues like this. What I do insist on however, is that they be held to a higher standard of politics than "failed politicians". I also insist on being reasonably convinced of something before deciding to vote in favour of it.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
I have found this topic very beneficial and I enjoyed reading of the debate in relation to a yes or no vote on Lisbon.
I myself am very unsure of which I lie.
This will be my first time voting and I obviously want to make my vote count and base it on intelligent, logical reasoning but I really don't know which way to turn or what to believe!
IN relation to Yes, I still don't see why the Govt. are pushing this so much. What has changed since last June? I honestly don't know. Have they made this treaty anymore applicable to the common person?
In relation to No, I take no notice of the posters or the supposed No campaign. The only thing that really annoyed me was that we have to have a second bash off of this. Not very democratic imo. A no vote the first time should have been respected.
But still I don't know what to think.
But reading this has given me food for thought on both aspects of the vote so thanks.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
I myself am very unsure of which I lie.
This will be my first time voting and I obviously want to make my vote count and base it on intelligent, logical reasoning but I really don't know which way to turn or what to believe!
IN relation to Yes, I still don't see why the Govt. are pushing this so much. What has changed since last June? I honestly don't know. Have they made this treaty anymore applicable to the common person?
The only thing that really annoyed me was that we have to have a second bash off of this. Not very democratic imo. A no vote the first time should have been respected.
You say that you're unsure where you lie and that you don't know why the government are pushing it so much but that the second vote annoys you. The point is the way they're pushing it now is the way they should have pushed it back then (although they could still be doing a much better job). The fact that you and a whole host of people like you are still undecided shows exactly why another referendum is needed. People of your mindset voted no in their droves last time because they were unsure and saw no as the safe option. It wasn't that they had objections to the treaty, they just weren't sure because the yes campaign was so bad.
They're doing a slightly better job this time around and there's a lot of information available from other sources too so all those people who were unsure last time hopefully won't be this time and the democratic will of the people will pass the Lisbon treaty, where last time they rejected change out of fear0 -
-
No does not mean no jobs, it means fewer jobs. If you have to change the text and the meaning of the poster to make it look ridiculous then the poster is not the one being made look ridiculous.mangaroosh wrote: »Yes to Jobs implies that voting yes will result in keeping or increasing Jobs, and also by implication that No is a No to Jobs, unless of course you are suggesting there is any other interpretation of this statement. It is a logical fallacy to imply this. I haven't misrepresented this statement, I have deduced its logical implications, so it is not actually a strawman, rather a logical fallacy by implication.
Logical fallacies tend to have names btw, such as a straw man. If you think it's a logical fallacy, which one is it?
90% of businesses, 91% of economists and the majority of trade unions agree with the statement (but not your straw man of it). Are they all the "political elite"?mangaroosh wrote: »Even if it isn't a direct logical fallacy, it is definitely empty rhetoric aimed at frightening the people of this country into ratifying a treaty that would otherwise be foisted upon the people of Europe, by the political elite.
....
Its not so much a strawman, as no real argument is based on it, it merely highlights the fact that the opposing claim has no bearing on the issue at all. No actual argument is constructed around that statement, the argument rather is constructed around the attempt of the political parties of this country (not just FF before you go off on another one), to scare the people of this country into voting Yes. That is not a strawman, because that was the deliberate intention of the Yes campaign. The argument then, is that because the Yes campaign, who should be held to a higher standard, are less trust worthy, as it is they that are suggesting a change, and then deliberately trying to mislead the electorate.
If something is a very real possibility and you warn someone of that possibility it's not scaremongering, it's giving good advice. For example, if I tell you that walking around with your eyes closed makes it more likely that you will be hit by a car, is that scaremongering or good advice? And if I tell you that a yes vote will help the economy because many industry experts have told me so, is that scaremongering or good advice?
Throw fine gael and labour and a few others in there if you insist, it doesn't change my point in any way.mangaroosh wrote: »Sorry, but you seem to have a pre-occupation with Fianna Fáil, I haven't mentioned them once, I have made it quite clear I am talking about all the major political parties.
The concerns of taxation, abortion, conscription, neutrality and the loss of a commissioner were addressed.mangaroosh wrote: »This isn't about sending a message to the current incumbent government, its about sending a message to all the politicians of this country and Europe, that our concerns need to be addresses, nust just run roughshod over in an attempt to push a political agenda, that seems to be heavily influenced by business interests, such as the armaments industry.
There's a very big distinction between "factual appearing" and factual. The no side are very adept at appearing factual but they are quoting half articles, misinterpreted articles and articles from the Nice treaty as if they're new and as if they do all this scary stuff. That has been shown conclusively on this forummangaroosh wrote: »Indeed, and I have stated that I was tending more towards Yes because of this. However, it doesn't change the fact that the tendency is to side with the more factual appearing statement, which is what I actually said. You see, this isn't about being right or wrong, this is about developing a better understanding. I am willing to change my point of view so long as there is sufficient reason to do so. The statement itself was not factually incorrect, and wasn't a deliberate fabrication.
Yes the statement was a deliberate fabrication because it only told half the story, in fact less than half the story. Similar to how Joe Higgins said that something effected health and education because he didn't quote the paragraph immediately below it explicitly excluding health and education.
You keep saying that but it's not. You are trying to use a vote on a completely unrelated and inappropriate matter to voice your opinion on how our politics are run. Again I will ask you if you intend to vote no on the children's rights referendum to send this message? You've already decided to use one completely unrelated referendum to send our politicians a message so why not another?mangaroosh wrote: »This vote is about more than just the Lisbon Treaty, it is about the kind of politics that we are willing to accept not only in this country, but in Europe.
I would venture you won't because you're not trying to find an excuse to vote no to that one.
Laws are enacted every single day without a referendum, that does not mean that there is no consideration for the people. Welcome to representative democracy. We didn't have a referendum on NAMA and that has implications a hundred times greater than this treaty. We in Ireland have a law that requires a referendum on EU treaties and they don't. If they want one they can demand one made just like Raymond Crotty did here in the 80's. If you look here, you will see that ratification through parliament is by far the normal procedure for EU treaties. We were the only ones who had a referendum for Nice, only us and the Danish for the Amsterdam treaty, only 3 countries for Maastricht and the people in those countries have yet to demand a change. EU countries, including Ireland, have had or planned referendums 15.8% of the times they could have. This idea that the ratification through parliament of Lisbon is somehow underhanded, unusual or undemocratic is, to use your favourite word, a fallacy invented by the no side.mangaroosh wrote: »If it wasn't for the fact it is written into our constitution, there would have been no vote on this by anyone, it would have been ratified by all the member states with no voice being given to the people of Europe, who this Treaty is going to impact on. This is the kind of politics that will prevail if we vote Yes, where laws are just inacted without any consideration for what the people actually want.
...
Now it may not be the exact same document, but one things if sure, the people of Europe have not even been given the opportunity to have their say.
....
I find it both insulting and misguieded to suggest that voting No is holding Europe to Ransom. Europe is being held to ransom by the politicians who have sought to push this piece of legislation through without consulting the people. In case you hadn't noticed, we are the only ones getting to vote on it.
If you think that then I can't help you mate. You say that you understand the treaty is "mostly administrative in nature" but you want reasons that are "immediately relatable to the interests of this country, and therefore myself". How you get that from an administrative treaty is anyone's guess. You're complaining that the politicians are giving empty rhetoric but then dismiss a detailed white paper from the government because it's "pro-yes". And the referendum commission website wasn't good enough because it just gives the facts and not reasons, essentially because it's not "pro-yes". Nothing seems to be satisfying you here.mangaroosh wrote: »So far the arguments in favour of Lisbon have been 10 pretty meaningless reasons, together with a white paper from a pro-yes government office.
And pulled out of their respective arseholes, let's not forget that. You keep going on about fallacies but everything from the no side is far more than a fallacy, they're blatant lies as has been shown to you.mangaroosh wrote: »While the reasons for voting no are many and varied.
Yes, the French and the Dutch objected to certain things and they were removed. If people only object to, say, articles 63, 56 and 24, why would you remove anything but those articles?mangaroosh wrote: »a treaty that by many accounts bears a great resemblance to the EU constitution that was already rejected by France and Holland.
No, the consequences for a politician who does not live up to standards is that you vote him out of office in a general election. A no vote will reflect badly on the whole of Ireland, not just our politicians.mangaroosh wrote: »The government don't have to break their streak for us to hold them to higher standards. We can hold them to higher standards and if they fail to live up to them, then they can deal with the consequences, which is face up to their European counterparts and explain how this was allowed to happen again.
And voting no reinforces that if those extremists and nut jobs lie enough they can trick us. They've done it twice before and they're about to do it a third time.mangaroosh wrote: »Voting Yes simply re-inforces not just the Governments lazy streak but that of all the major political parties, not just in Ireland, but In Europe.
No I have no allegiance to Fianna Fail. I hate Fianna Fail.mangaroosh wrote: »This is just endemic of the Yes campaign, an inability to listen. I have no axe to bear with Fianna Fáil, but perhaps you do, or else you have an allegiance to them, I'm not sure, but it is you that continues to erect this strawman. What I said was the the White Paper came from a a pro-Yes Government department. I couldn't say it came from a pro-Yes opposition party because that would have been factually incorrect.
I realise the yes campaign is a shambles run by idiots. You will not get any argument from me on that matter so there is no point saying it over and over again. As a citizen it is your responsibility to understand the ramifications of your vote before you cast it. Our government are under no obligation to any campaigning whatsoever for this treaty and I would prefer if they didn't because they're very bad at it.
No you're not considering the wider ramifications, you're implying ramifications that have nothing to do with the treaty while ignoring that voting no will "set a dangerous precedent" that lying will get extremists what they want. You also seem to think that a no vote will have some kind of effect on our politicians when in reality they'll just point to the multitude of other reasons people will have voted no and continue as usual. Lots of people voted no last time for this very reason and it had pretty much no effect so the chances of a second no vote having this effect are roughly nil. If you want to voice your approval at our politicians, the time to do that is at a general election.mangaroosh wrote: »I am indeed not justifying my decision to vote No by some noble attack on the irish political system, I am considering the wider ramifications of the vote with regard to the way politics is conducted in this country and in europe. If you are too blind to see that this could set a dangerous precedent for the ratification of future treaties, then please don't resort to condescending and trying to justify your own Yes vote based on 10 shoddy reasons that look good on paper but will have very little if any effect on the people of Europe.
And in attaching these inappropriate ramifications and deciding based on them you are ignoring the actual wider ramifications. This treaty is bigger than our crappy politicians, it's about the future direction of the entire European Union. You are effecting the lives of 500 million people because you want to send our politicians a message that you can send them just as easily and far more appropriately at a general election. You are abusing the privilege of the vote that your ancestors fought to give you0 -
Advertisement