A third referendum under Fine Gael?

isocket

Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny 3rd Vote if lisbon NO

Can you believe the arrogance of these people?
Personally, I will vote NO a hundred times.
The fact that Mr. Kenny refuses to rule out a 3rd vote, may indicate that the private polling of the establishment parties are getting a very negative reaction from the public.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0924/breaking58.htm

moondogspot

If that were to be the case then it would really prove that the EU are a completely undemocratic

organisation and our government a shower of gutless muppets with no respect for the will of the

people either.

meglome

moondogspot wrote: »

If that were to be the case then it would really prove that the EU are a completely undemocratic

organisation and our government a shower of gutless muppets with no respect for the will of the

people either.

It's our own government that decides if we vote again or not, it has nothing to do with the EU.

I would seriously doubt there would be another vote.

Victor

isocket wrote: »

may indicate that the private polling of the establishment parties are getting a very negative reaction from the public.

Why speculate when there is an actual poll available? http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0925/1224255210994.html

Captain Furball

You trust that paper? lol

meglome

Captain Furball wrote: »

You trust that paper? lol

More than the sovereign independent that's for sure, which you seem to trust.

Daftendirekt

meglome wrote: »

It's our own government that decides if we vote again or not, it has nothing to do with the EU.

I would seriously doubt there would be another vote.

It actually wouldn't even be our government, it be a new Fine Gael led government.

But I can't see it happening. Vaguely remember a post by Scofflaw saying the Treaty had to be ratified by all the member states within two years of signing?

I'll try and dig it up, but IIRC it's written in the Preamble of the Treaty.

BlitzKrieg

It actually wouldn't even be our government, it be a new Fine Gael led government.

They would be given more then enough of an excuse if the results of this referendum ends up polling that fianna fail were the driving reason for a no vote.

Which leads into one of the core issues of the whole debate in my opinion, there is no point campaigning against a treaty in a referendum if you are not using factual and relevent (nama is not relevent to lisbon) information because it practically gives the government a blank cheque to arrange another referendum.

personnally I dont think there will be a third referendum because I would expect the EU to officially pull Lisbon rather then deal with incompentance of the irish government again. Though as I said elsewhere it wont matter if they pull lisbon cause 4 or 5 years down the line when whatever alternative is presented chances are it will still be accused of being Lisbon in disguise which is the constitution in disguise etc etc etc.

But I can't see it happening. Vaguely remember a post by Scofflaw saying the Treaty had to be ratified by all the member states within two years of signing?

I'm not sure of the procedure under Nice, but under Lisbon (which we are not under yet) if all member states have not ratified an amendment within two years it is sent back to the council of europe for deliberation.

Maybe the EU is sticking to that policy in some form.

thebman

isocket wrote: »

Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny 3rd Vote if lisbon NO

Can you believe the arrogance of these people?
Personally, I will vote NO a hundred times.
The fact that Mr. Kenny refuses to rule out a 3rd vote, may indicate that the private polling of the establishment parties are getting a very negative reaction from the public.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0924/breaking58.htm

Well he didn't rule it out but it isn't his decision is it?

If you ask me are politicians corrupt, I wouldn't rule it out.

Victor

Captain Furball wrote: »

You trust that paper? lol

Mostly, but not absolutely. But to be honest I would trust a newspaper article that has been created and reviewed by several people more than a piece of hyperbole created by one.

Do you trust that paper when it was quoted in the first post? That isocket has thanked your post rather exposes him as a hypocrite.

sdanseo

Enda Kenny is an arrogant fool with a spud for a brain who only even has the slightest pop at power because the current government belong in a zoo. If he becomes Taoiseach I'll cringe every time the news comes on.

My opinion on Lisbon, despite all this bloody debates and all the various attempts to inform me, remains undecided. Everything I have heard so far when trying to inform myself as a total layperson has been accompanied by an argument for or against, the exception being the Referendum Commission -Their website is great although their brochure can only be described as a pathetic waste of paper - it answered two questions, both of which I'd figured out the answers to about six weeks before.

As for the Times/Indo thing: The Irish times remains the only paper I'll read if I want solid news, but I never read it becuase I never have the space for a broadsheet. That said tabloid status has ruined the indo.

JimmyO

They didn't seek guarantees on all of our concerns.

There's deffo room for Lisbon Mk III.

They just go back and seek Guarantees for what we only have assurances on.

Sure wouldn't that make all the difference!! Why wouldn't we want to vote again!

Sam Vimes

What questions do you have sdonn? Ask them here and they will be answered. I have a feeling that your questions are related to one of the lies being bandied about and the referendum commission doesn't deal with things like that

Also, about your sig saying lisbon 2 is a disgrace: we voted no, 3 independent surveys were done to find out what our issues were, they addressed most of them, far more than enough to swing the vote, and they asked if we'd changed our minds. What's the problem?

If you intend to respond by saying it's the same treaty, I'll point out that there was nothing in the treaty that could be changed to address the issues of abortion, neutrality, conscription and taxation, they were simply lies that people believed, and the loss of a commissioner could be changed using an existing rule and didn't require a change to the text

And lets not forget that the biggest reason for rejection by far was lack of understanding, the whole "if you don't know vote no thing". Why not give these people a chance to change their minds now that they've had two years to investigate the issues. A good few people have said on here that they hadn't a clue last time and voted no but will vote yes this time

Btw, I'd appreciate it if you didn't suggest that the surveys were rigged in some way. They were done by 3 independent polling companies who do this kind of thing for a living and whose existence depends on accurate results. I don't know if you are going to suggest that, I'm just preempting it because it's the usual response at this point, even though no one can tell me what the government would have to gain by deliberately not addressing anyone's issues and then running another referendum that was doomed to failure.....because they deliberately didn't address anyone's issues

Sam Vimes

JimmyO wrote: »

They didn't seek guarantees on all of our concerns.

There's deffo room for Lisbon Mk III.

They just go back and seek Guarantees for what we only have assurances on.

Sure wouldn't that make all the difference!! Why wouldn't we want to vote again!

If you have concerns and vote no because of those concerns and the government gets guarantees addressing those concerns, why wouldn't you change your mind? This "no means no even if the reasons I voted no are now irrelevant" logic is baffling to me

JimmyO

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you have concerns and vote no because of those concerns and the government gets guarantees addressing those concerns, why wouldn't you change your mind? This "no means no even if the reasons I voted no are now irrelevant" logic is baffling to me

The point I'm trying to make is that rather than go and address all our concerns now, they have left themselves room to put it to us again should they not get a yes vote with MkII.

sdanseo

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What questions do you have sdonn? Ask them here and they will be answered. I have a feeling that your questions are related to one of the lies being bandied about and the referendum commission doesn't deal with things like that

I meant the brochure addressed very little, the only questions answered on it were the few I'd already bothered to research. One must refer to the website for any detail.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Also, about your sig saying lisbon 2 is a disgrace: we voted no, 3 independent surveys were done to find out what our issues were, they addressed most of them, far more than enough to swing the vote, and they asked if we'd changed our minds. What's the problem?

I reckon it's a disgrace to ask the public the same questions twice for two reasons.

#1: Yes a lot of people did admit to voting no because the treaty was not explained to them. That does not excuse the government's failure to do so the first time.

#2: I don't believe the vote will be swung based on the clarification of the issues, I reckon people will bottle it. In a perfect world, the better result of this referendum would be no. Unfortunately, we are going to end up in a detremental economic situation if we do that, through no fault of our own but through the bullying tactics of the EU and its distorted mandate. If (and i mean IF) I do vote yes, it will be because I feel in the short term there is no option but to cave to the bullies for the greater good - something akin to the cause of WWII if I'm not mistaken.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you intend to respond by saying it's the same treaty, I'll point out that there was nothing in the treaty that could be changed to address the issues of abortion, neutrality, conscription and taxation, they were simply lies that people believed, and the loss of a commissioner could be changed using an existing rule and didn't require a change to the text

But it is the same treaty. Nothing in the text has changed, not one letter. The assurance that is there is that Ireland will retain a commissioner until 2014, after which the EU will have concocted some excuse to use the mechanism, as the Referendum Commission puts it, to change things. At least the way things are, in order for the next commission to be finalised Ireland has a veto in its makeup albeit if it does require at least one state not to have a commissioner, better than nine not having one.

I don't believe or worry that conscription is going to be introduced any time soon. But if passing Lisbon makes it even one iota more likely I will be voting no without question, that's in real terms now, not in "political excuses language".

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And lets not forget that the biggest reason for rejection by far was lack of understanding, the whole "if you don't know vote no thing"... A good few people have said on here that they hadn't a clue last time and voted no but will vote yes this time

Yes, I was one of them. Like I said I voted no because I feared we would lose our commissioner, voting rights and weighting and be open to our troops being drafted into an EU superarmy. The only thing we have now that we did not then are "legally binding assurances". At least one of these, regarding the commissioner, only delays the same outcome as the first time round by 5 years, it does not change anything permanently. As I said above I have probably not been swayed, but coersed by a shambolically undemorcratic EU which seems to be following what the politicians want, and not what the people want. Just because the democratically elected parliaments of the other 26 states ratified it DOES NOT mean everyone in those countries wants it and to be honest, I find it incredulous at best for anyone to suggest that at least one or two of the other 26 nations would not have also voted no if given the chance.

This treaty, to my understanding (I'll admit naturally I haven't read it all, but struggled through the odd few pages) flies in the face of everything that seems sensible to me. I don't like it, don't agree with it, I think it's an undemoratic, long-winded and unnessecary piece of diplomatic bullshít - but I and Ireland, and as a DIRECT result of that the EU with us, are probably going to ratify it - purely because we are being nothing short of BULLIED into doing so.

And the ironic thing is, I'm fairly sure there's an EU directive against bullying, somewhere. :rolleyes:

RedPlanet

Fair play sdonn.
But don't be bullied.
Vote No to spite them.

Sam Vimes

RedPlanet wrote: »

Fair play sdonn.
But don't be bullied.
Vote No to spite them.

Have you ever heard the phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face"?

Sam Vimes

sdonn wrote: »

I meant the brochure addressed very little, the only questions answered on it were the few I'd already bothered to research. One must refer to the website for any detail.

They also have an extended brochure. The problem is that if you give too little people like you and me complain and if you give too much people get bored and/or accuse them of trying to bamboozle them. On balance this was probably the best way because it addressed only the major issues and referred people to where they can get more info.

sdonn wrote: »

I reckon it's a disgrace to ask the public the same questions twice for two reasons.

#1: Yes a lot of people did admit to voting no because the treaty was not explained to them. That does not excuse the government's failure to do so the first time.

No it doesn't. They ran a brutal campaign last time and that pretty much lost it, not the contents of the treaty. So why not give them another shot at it?

sdonn wrote: »

#2: I don't believe the vote will be swung based on the clarification of the issues, I reckon people will bottle it. In a perfect world, the better result of this referendum would be no. Unfortunately, we are going to end up in a detremental economic situation if we do that, through no fault of our own but through the bullying tactics of the EU and its distorted mandate. If (and i mean IF) I do vote yes, it will be because I feel in the short term there is no option but to cave to the bullies for the greater good - something akin to the cause of WWII if I'm not mistaken.

The second vote was announced before the recession hit so that can't have been their motivation for it. But although you say that you don't think the reason for a yes vote will be the clarification of the issues, you acknowledge that the issues have been clarified so what's the problem with asking people if they've changed their minds?

sdonn wrote: »

But it is the same treaty. Nothing in the text has changed, not one letter. The assurance that is there is that Ireland will retain a commissioner until 2014, after which the EU will have concocted some excuse to use the mechanism, as the Referendum Commission puts it, to change things. At least the way things are, in order for the next commission to be finalised Ireland has a veto in its makeup albeit if it does require at least one state not to have a commissioner, better than nine not having one.

No Ireland will have an automatic right to a commissioner if we vote yes. It's Nice rules that will remove it in 2014. And tell me, if the people voted no because of issues that are not in the treaty, why does it matter that it's the same treaty? Would you have preferred they picked a few random articles and moved around a few commas? We didn't tell them which parts we wanted changed!

sdonn wrote: »

I don't believe or worry that conscription is going to be introduced any time soon. But if passing Lisbon makes it even one iota more likely I will be voting no without question, that's in real terms now, not in "political excuses language".

But it doesn't. And that's the problem the yes side face. You throw enough mud and some will always stick.

sdonn wrote: »

Yes, I was one of them. Like I said I voted no because I feared we would lose our commissioner, voting rights and weighting and be open to our troops being drafted into an EU superarmy. The only thing we have now that we did not then are "legally binding assurances". At least one of these, regarding the commissioner, only delays the same outcome as the first time round by 5 years, it does not change anything permanently

Nothing is changed permanently in the EU, it will be reviewed in 5 years just like everything else but if we vote no the size of the commission will be reduced in 2014. Also, do you not see the logical contradiction in the fact that your reasons for voting no have been addressed through legally binding guarantees and yet you object to being asked again? Honestly, does that make sense to you?

Or do you think that the guarantees aren't binding because the liars keep saying they're not?

sdonn wrote: »

I find it incredulous at best for anyone to suggest that at least one or two of the other 26 nations would not have also voted no if given the chance.

I agree with you but not because the treaty is bad, because the same thing would happen there as happened here. Liars and extremists would spread their lies and people would reject it out of fear. That's why other countries aren't having referendums, because a complex document full of legal language designed to define how 27 member nations interact is difficult to make an informed decision on and Betty from Mayo doesn't have the time, the inclination of the expertise to make an informed decision on it. Issues like this are why we vote in governments who employ experts. And the fact that the treaty is so long and complex makes it very easy to make up all manner of crap about it and very difficult to refute it so benign and beneficial treaties get voted down because of extremists with ulterior motives fooling people. It's the reason referendums are illegal in Germany and the Netherlands.

sdonn wrote: »

This treaty, to my understanding (I'll admit naturally I haven't read it all, but struggled through the odd few pages) flies in the face of everything that seems sensible to me. I don't like it, don't agree with it, I think it's an undemoratic, long-winded and unnessecary piece of diplomatic bullshít - but I and Ireland, and as a DIRECT result of that the EU with us, are probably going to ratify it - purely because we are being nothing short of BULLIED into doing so.

I would argue that we're being bullied into rejecting it but anyway, if the treaty was unnecessary they wouldn't have spent 5 years and millions writing it. The EU is a union of 27 using rules designed for a union of 15. It leads to bloated, ineffectual procedures and it needs to change. You say it's long winded but that's one of the very issues the treaty seeks to address! The simplified revision procedure will allow single issues to be debated and passed by either the Dail or through referendum (depending on if it's required by the constitutional requirements) instead of waiting 5 years and voting on a massive treaty and either voting yes or no to all the changes. It's like putting the divorce, abortion and upcoming children's rights referendums all in the one vote and you have to accept or reject them all. It's a mad system that Lisbon is supposed to fix.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Oh for god's sake. Where's the f*cking quality control on thread titles.

'Kenny will you rule out a 3rd referendum?'
'I'm not even contemplating defeat, I think we'll pass this one'

Becomes
'Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny 3rd Vote if lisbon NO'

Grossly misleading.

Rb

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Oh for god's sake. Where's the f*cking quality control on thread titles.

'Kenny will you rule out a 3rd referendum?'
'I'm not even contemplating defeat, I think we'll pass this one'

Becomes
'Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny 3rd Vote if lisbon NO'

Grossly misleading.

Indeed, just try to remember who the authors are though.

I love how OP posts linking to the IT and with yet another absolutely bogus, fear mongering slogan that he made up himself (or perhaps got on p.ie), then when confronted by the fact the same paper published a poll of theirs indicating a Yes result so far a fellow No man questions the paper's integrity which is then thanked by the OP, who used the same paper as his source for this thread.

You couldn't make it up, really you couldn't. I would compare it to watching the monkeys in the zoo flinging poo at one another, but that would be insulting those poor creatures.

The very worst thing about a No result this time around is that there is not one legitimate excuse we can return to Europe with to say why we went No again, not one. We'll come out looking like a nation of absolute anti-European idiots if a No is returned this time. If we had any further semi-legitimate concerns that we could have them address then I would certainly welcome a third vote.

Hopefully there's enough reasonable, intelligent people in the country to pull a Yes through this time and thankfully it's looking good so far.

Scofflaw

But it is the same treaty. Nothing in the text has changed, not one letter. The assurance that is there is that Ireland will retain a commissioner until 2014, after which the EU will have concocted some excuse to use the mechanism, as the Referendum Commission puts it, to change things. At least the way things are, in order for the next commission to be finalised Ireland has a veto in its makeup albeit if it does require at least one state not to have a commissioner, better than nine not having one.

That's entirely inaccurate. The next Commission would be a full Commission under Lisbon anyway - the decision to retain the full Commission applies to 2014 on, which is when the Commission would originally have been reduced under Lisbon.

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome

Rb wrote: »

The very worst thing about a No result this time around is that there is not one legitimate excuse we can return to Europe with to say why we went No again, not one. We'll come out looking like a nation of absolute anti-European idiots if a No is returned this time. If we had any further semi-legitimate concerns that we could have them address then I would certainly welcome a third vote.

Hopefully there's enough reasonable, intelligent people in the country to pull a Yes through this time and thankfully it's looking good so far.

You know that's it exactly. I've been listening to some posters in here for weeks and I still can't quite figure out why they are voting No. Well other than some fantasy vision that the EU is the devil or some fantasy vision of what 'independence' is.

roosh

I would have absolutely no problem voting again, so long as there is open and frank discussions about the actual ramifications this will have.

Dinner

The title of this thread is class. It's the same as Coir's Minimum wage poster.

Make an unsubstantiated claim and slap a question mark on the end of it to cover yourself.

Do you work for Coir isocket, or are you just a fan of their work?

Scofflaw

Dinner wrote: »

The title of this thread is class. It's the same as Coir's Minimum wage poster.

Make an unsubstantiated claim and slap a question mark on the end of it to cover yourself.

Do you work for Coir isocket, or are you just a fan of their work?

Actually, isocket's original title claimed that Enda Kenny had said there would be a third referendum. I've edited the title to be slightly more accurate, but hopefully left the sense of the article he/she refers to. I admit my inspiration was COIR.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Dinner

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, isocket's original title claimed that Enda Kenny had said there would be a third referendum. I've edited the title to be slightly more accurate, but hopefully left the sense of the article he/she refers to. I admit my inspiration was COIR.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Ah fair enough so.

Suppose it's worse without the question mark.

isocket

Dinner wrote: »

The title of this thread is class. It's the same as Coir's Minimum wage poster.

Make an unsubstantiated claim and slap a question mark on the end of it to cover yourself.

Do you work for Coir isocket, or are you just a fan of their work?

Actually, just for the record.
The original title for this thread was -
Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny 3rd Vote if lisbon NO

It was changed by a mod to -
A third referendum under Fine Gael?

Nonetheless, surely the issue here is that to even think of rejecting a second NO vote would be anti-democratic to the point of fascism, but what else can you expect from the blue shirts?
What so many of the YES side ignore is that a referendum returning a YES vote will end the debate in Ireland & for ALL of our European brothers & sisters.
The YES side are a disgrace in your ignorant understanding of simple democracy.
You were either too damned lazy, or busy making money, to vote on the last occasion &, like the spoiled brats that you are, now that YOU are feeling the pinch, you want your toys back.
It was the working class & others of good conscience that voted NO the last time.
I'm not a Marxist, but there is a class issue here

View

isocket wrote: »

Actually, just for the record.
The original title for this thread was -
Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny 3rd Vote if lisbon NO

It was changed by a mod to -
A third referendum under Fine Gael?

Nonetheless, surely the issue here is that to even think of rejecting a second NO vote would be anti-democratic to the point of fascism, but what else can you expect from the blue shirts?
What so many of the YES side ignore is that a referendum returning a YES vote will end the debate in Ireland & for ALL of our European brothers & sisters.
The YES side are a disgrace in your ignorant understanding of simple democracy.
You were either too damned lazy, or busy making money, to vote on the last occasion &, like the spoiled brats that you are, now that YOU are feeling the pinch, you want your toys back.
It was the working class & others of good conscience that voted NO the last time.
I'm not a Marxist, but there is a class issue here

The Supreme Court has just ruled that holding multiple referenda on an issue is not "anti-democratic". As such, it is perfectly democratic to hold another referendum should the Government (whomever they may be) decide to do so. Start marshalling your arguments for Lisbon IV and V...

Sam Vimes

isocket wrote: »

Actually, just for the record.
The original title for this thread was -
Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny 3rd Vote if lisbon NO

It was changed by a mod to -
A third referendum under Fine Gael?

Nonetheless, surely the issue here is that to even think of rejecting a second NO vote would be anti-democratic to the point of fascism, but what else can you expect from the blue shirts?
What so many of the YES side ignore is that a referendum returning a YES vote will end the debate in Ireland & for ALL of our European brothers & sisters.
The YES side are a disgrace in your ignorant understanding of simple democracy.
You were either too damned lazy, or busy making money, to vote on the last occasion &, like the spoiled brats that you are, now that YOU are feeling the pinch, you want your toys back.
It was the working class & others of good conscience that voted NO the last time.
I'm not a Marxist, but there is a class issue here

Significant numbers of people are voting no to spite Fianna Fail. Would a Fine Gael government not change those circumstances?

isocket

View wrote: »

The Supreme Court has just ruled that holding multiple referenda on an issue is not "anti-democratic". As such, it is perfectly democratic to hold another referendum should the Government (whomever they may be) decide to do so. Start marshalling your arguments for Lisbon IV and V...

I see, that clears it up then, lol.
Here's a little question for you.
If the Supreme Court decided that it was anti-democratic to end a multiple series of referenda on the return of a YES vote, would you agree to that?
Of course you would'nt.
Go sip some Chardonnay & talk about your shares!

View

isocket wrote: »

I see, that clears it up then, lol.
Here's a little question for you.
If the Supreme Court decided that it was anti-democratic to end a multiple series of referenda on the return of a YES vote, would you agree to that?
Of course you would'nt.
Go sip some Chardonnay & talk about your shares!

The Supreme Court doesn't, and won't rule, "that it was anti-democratic to end a multiple series of referenda on the return of a YES vote". The Supreme Court's ruling isn't based on the result of referenda, it is based on Bunreacht na hEireann which specifies that it is the Oireachtas' decision when, and if, to hold referenda.

I respect the decision by the majority of the electorate when they choose - in a referendum - to ratify Bunreacht na hEireann. Unlike, many on the No side, I am not in effect claiming that Bunreacht na hEireann is wrong because I don't like the decisions being made based on it.

sceptre

The constitution of Ireland's actually a reasonably quick read for anyone who hasn't bothered (and I know there are definitely a few of you in this thread). It's worth reading.

Don't be fooled by the size of the book, you only have to read every second page.

bonkey

Rb wrote: »

We'll come out looking like a nation of absolute anti-European idiots if a No is returned this time. If we had any further semi-legitimate concerns that we could have them address then I would certainly welcome a third vote.

Hopefully there's enough reasonable, intelligent people in the country to pull a Yes through this time and thankfully it's looking good so far.

meglome wrote: »

You know that's it exactly. I've been listening to some posters in here for weeks and I still can't quite figure out why they are voting No. Well other than some fantasy vision that the EU is the devil or some fantasy vision of what 'independence' is.

Guys...if you're attempting to convince people to vote yes, I would suggest that this is the wrong way to go about it.

If, on the other hand, you're only trying to insult people who would vote no, then as a moderator I'd tell you that you're in the wrong place.

Rb

bonkey wrote: »

Guys...if you're attempting to convince people to vote yes, I would suggest that this is the wrong way to go about it.

If, on the other hand, you're only trying to insult people who would vote no, then as a moderator I'd tell you that you're in the wrong place.

It's neither. It is, however, quite a genuine concern.

Last time round Europe looked at us and said "Ok, you're against it, what is it in the treaty you don't like?" and we dug deep and found a few reasons that we were "concerned" about thanks to the fear mongering campaigns of some of the parties involved.

This time round, if we vote No, they will want to know why. "I didn't know anything about it, it's the gubberments fault so I voted No", "ABORTION!!!", "YOU'RE GONNA CONSCRIPT ME CHILDREN!" etc etc will not cut it. We have yet to be shown one good reason to vote no that has basing in the treaty and the EU will want answers.

Are the No side selling the treaty based on fact? No, in fact now their entire campaign lies in clinging to two statements made by the Yes side on their posters. Their entire campaign, they literally have nothing else but these two statements and a library of lies that they're seeing be debunked daily by people far more educated than those making them.

So yes, it is a genuine concern. What will we say to Europe if we vote No?

I wouldn't bother trying to insult people advocating a No on here because for the most part their posts do far more damage to their image/points than anything I could ever say really.

K-9

Some people are voting No for exactly this reason. Suppose you can't please all the people, all the time.

meglome

bonkey wrote: »

Guys...if you're attempting to convince people to vote yes, I would suggest that this is the wrong way to go about it.

If, on the other hand, you're only trying to insult people who would vote no, then as a moderator I'd tell you that you're in the wrong place.

It's a fair point bonkey but I'm with Rb on this. I'm really not trying to insult anyone.