Will we be left behind if we vote No on Lisbon?

roosh

I'm just reading the spoofers guide to the Lisbon treaty, and a point is being made that has been repeatedly made by the Yes voters, and I just would like a bit of clarification.

There is this notion that if we vote No, that Ireland will somehow be left behind, that we will no longer be central to the decision making processes in Europe, etc. etc.

Can anyone give a breakdown of why this might be the case? Also, there is nothing in any EU legislation that Ireland cannot participate in any future negotiations if it doesn't ratify the Lisbon Treaty, is there? What other nations won't be allowed to take part in discussions?

It is for reasons like this, unsubstatiated scare mongering that I am still leaning towards a No vote. Can anyone clarify the above issues?

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw has already explained how politics within EU work and what a favorable position/leverage our elected representatives have (had?) based on goodwill

please check his past posts

oscarBravo

mangaroosh wrote: »

It is for reasons like this, unsubstatiated scare mongering that I am still leaning towards a No vote.

I'm curious. If unsubstantiated scaremongering pushes you away, how come Cóir's posters haven't plastered you against the opposite wall of the room?

ghost_ie

How could we be left behind? If we don't ratify the treaty this time then the treaty is dead - unless they keep making us vote until we give the right answer. If we reject the treaty then we stay as we are under the Nice treaty until they come up with a treaty which is ratified by all countries in the EU

Daftendirekt

I explained the reasoning behind this here.

I know it's not necessarily true that all No voters are opposed to Lisbon because they disagree with the EU project, but here's a couple of hypothetical scenarios to explain the situation as I see it.

If the Treaty is rejected again, and people come out and say 'We voted No to Lisbon because we disagree with X, Y and Z aspects of the text for A, B and C reasons' then nobody will be able to infer an anti-EU sentiment. The other member states will probably be little annoyed at having to go back to the drawing board, but armed with this increase in knowledge, we can all get to work on negotiating a deal that the Irish people will be happy with.


If, however, the Treaty is rejected and people come out and say 'We voted No to Lisbon for no particular reason' then the other member states will be left scratching their heads, wondering what exactly it was that was wrong with the Treaty. They can't just draft a new Treaty, since they won't know what was wrong with the last one. Since no suggestions have been put forth about how to address the Irish people's concerns, it's easy to see how a No to Lisbon might be interpreted in this scenario, as a No to the EU.

The other member states will have to draft a new reform treaty (since they actually want the changes proposed in Lisbon), but this time, they won't have addressed the concerns of the Irish (since they have no idea what those concerns are) and so won't be able to count on ratification by Ireland.


This would definitely call into question Ireland's stance on the EU, not necessarily because the Irish are anti-EU, but because we'd have rejected an important EU Treaty without having any clear reason to do so

Basically, if the member states realise that no matter how beneficial a treaty is to Ireland, it would always be rejected, which of the following is more likely:

1. The member states would give up on trying to reform the EU, and would continue on under Nice indefinitely? Even though nobody actually wants this (apart from Ireland, as far as anyone can tell).

2. The member states would look at drafting up a new agreement or set of agreements amongst themselves, possibly using the enhanced cooperation procedure, and work out a separate agreement with Ireland on how it would deal with the EU in future?

roosh

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm curious. If unsubstantiated scaremongering pushes you away, how come Cóir's posters haven't plastered you against the opposite wall of the room?

Because I am unconcerned about what Cóir have to say. I am no by default until I see good reason to vote yes. Those telling me to vote yes, namely all the major political parties in this country have tried to fob us off with nonsense. I would therefore be more willing to vote No to let them know this is not acceptible politics. Cóir won't be looking to run the country after the next election.

What scaremongering is that by the way?

moondogspot

ghost_ie wrote: »

How could we be left behind? If we don't ratify the treaty this time then the treaty is dead - unless they keep making us vote until we give the right answer. If we reject the treaty then we stay as we are under the Nice treaty until they come up with a treaty which is ratified by all countries in the EU

That's exactly it and that's all there is to it. The Pro Lisbon side will continue to say otherwise just to try and create fear to get people to vote Yes.

roosh

ghost_ie wrote: »

How could we be left behind? If we don't ratify the treaty this time then the treaty is dead - unless they keep making us vote until we give the right answer. If we reject the treaty then we stay as we are under the Nice treaty until they come up with a treaty which is ratified by all countries in the EU

so we get left behind with everyone else?

Bob_Harris

Ireland will absolutely not be "left behind" if we vote no.

PomBear

mangaroosh wrote: »

so we get left behind with everyone else?

France and Holland didn't get left behind and they rejected the EU constitution which makes up 95% of what we know as the Lisbon Treaty, the notion that we'll be the black sheep of Europe is a scare tactic

roosh

Daftendirekt wrote: »

I explained the reasoning behind this here.



Basically, if the member states realise that no matter how beneficial a treaty is to Ireland, it would always be rejected, which of the following is more likely:

1. The member states would give up on trying to reform the EU, and would continue on under Nice indefinitely? Even though nobody actually wants this (apart from Ireland, as far as anyone can tell).

2. The member states would look at drafting up a new agreement or set of agreements amongst themselves, possibly using the enhanced cooperation procedure, and work out a separate agreement with Ireland on how it would deal with the EU in future?

Hold on a second, this is all hypothetical. Equally relevant is to suggest that after we reject it and the British vote on it, if they reject it, and then the Czechs reject it, we quickly realise that this isn't actually what the people of Europe want at all.

It is also equally relevant to suggest that if it does not get ratified by us, then those in other countries may get a chance to have their say, either directly on Lisbon or in their general elections.

How about we reject it for the very reason that we have not been informed well enough about it, and let the EU this is the reason, and let them know we want open debate and discussion and more transparency, when it comes to the Treaty that promises transparency.


There are a number of very dangerous assumptions above, namely that the rest of the European people actually want this, when in fact they have not had a say on it.

Also, that those governments that are in power now, who make up the EU will be in power next time round. What happens if mroe Euro-pragmatic, or indeed Euro-sceptical parties get in, and look negatively at the fact that we voted Yes.

We don't actually get left behind if we vote No do we? This again is just part of the scaremongering from the political parties. Another reason to vote No.

roosh

Hypothetically it could give us a stronger voice in Europe, if we vote No because instead of getting left behind, which frankly would be an embarassment to the operation of the EU and somehting they would never allow happen, they may consult us even further to make sure we ratify it next time.

Who knows they may even give us some legally binding guarantees next time, as opposed to the promise of some legally binding guarantees.


We will not get left behind if we Vote No!

Rb

Yes but France and Holland had legitimate concerns with the text they were presented with. That's quite a bit of a difference between the two situations.

If we go "No" again and the EU ask us why, I can only cross my fingers and hope that those who have to answer them can come up with something less embarrassing than the absolute lunacy we're being confronted with from the No side.

roosh

Rb wrote: »

Yes but France and Holland had legitimate concerns with the text they were presented with. That's quite a bit of a difference between the two situations.

If we go "No" again and the EU ask us why, I can only cross my fingers and hope that those who have to answer them can come up with something less embarrassing than the lunancy we're being confronted with from the No side.

One of the many reasons I am tending towards No is because those trying to get me to vote Yes told a pack of lies and tried to scare us into voting yes, and these are the peopel who will be running the country and the EU.

Frankly, this is not acceptible

Bob_Harris

Rb wrote: »

If we go "No" again and the EU ask us why...

How about we tell them we voted no for the poops and giggles?

Or perhaps they could just get the message and stop trying to force this unwanted constitution on the people of Europe.

Rb

mangaroosh wrote: »

One of the many reasons I am tending towards No is because those trying to get me to vote Yes told a pack of lies and tried to scare us into voting yes, and these are the peopel who will be running the country and the EU.

Frankly, this is not acceptible

Yes, please refer to my points regarding embarrassing lunacy above. We'll need much better points to bring to the table if a No vote is returned than such nonsense.

Purple Gorilla

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm curious. If unsubstantiated scaremongering pushes you away, how come Cóir's posters haven't plastered you against the opposite wall of the room?

TBH, that's a stupid argument. The Yes side is using as much scaremongering as the No Side is.
"It's simple- We need Europe"
"Yes for jobs"
etc. etc.
What has any of that to do with the Lisbon Treaty? We aren't voting on EU Membership and the treaty won't do much for jobs so the Yes Side's argument is just as unsubstantiated.

Infact, I wouldn't be surprised if the No side wins simply because of this. The No side is full of scaremongering like "Privatisation of Healthcare & Education" but whether it's true or not, if an average joe see's that, they'll think it's coming from the treaty. "We need Europe" is vague and has nothing to do with the treaty so it just looks like the Yes Side is dodging all the facts.

Rb

Bob_Harris wrote: »

How about we tell them we voted no for the poops and giggles?

Well, if a No vote is returned then it may indeed be a whole lot better to tell them that than the actual truth of the situation.

Ok so I take it you can't find a legitimate reason to vote against the text?

Bob_Harris wrote:

Or perhaps they could just get the message and stop trying to force this unwanted constitution on the people of Europe.

Most countries have ratified and this has been done so by their democratically elected government representatives.

MarkK

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

"Yes for jobs"

So suggesting a benefit is a "scaremongering"?

Purple Gorilla

MarkK wrote: »

So suggesting a benefit is a "scaremongering"?

Where does it mention anything about more jobs for Irish in the treaty?

The more jobs argument is nothing but an opinion

Rb

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

TBH, that's a stupid argument. The Yes side is using as much scaremongering as the No Side is.
"It's simple- We need Europe"
"Yes for jobs"
etc. etc.
What has any of that to do with the Lisbon Treaty? We aren't voting on EU Membership and the treaty won't do much for jobs so the Yes Side's argument is just as unsubstantiated.

Infact, I wouldn't be surprised if the No side wins simply because of this. The No side is full of scaremongering like "Privatisation of Healthcare & Education" but whether it's true or not, if an average joe see's that, they'll think it's coming from the treaty. "We need Europe" is vague and has nothing to do with the treaty so it just looks like the Yes Side is dodging all the facts.

Really? The Yes side is dodging the facts? In debate, the only side capable of using facts seems to be the Yes side because every single reason the No side can bring up is either a lie or is wrong.

Equal scare mongering? Really? You equate a statement like "Vote Yes for Jobs" with "Not on their lives" with a picture of a foetus and an elderly person, implying that voting Yes will put their lives in danger?

Do you really believe those two posters are equal? If so, we have a much, much bigger problem than people not bothering to inform themselves of the actual thing we're voting on, but a massive problem of irrationality.

Nothing the No side has brought to the table thus far has factual grounding in the text. To propose the campaigns are equal, or that the Yes campaign is actually in some way worse is just hilarious. I thought so too at one time, I must admit, but then I opened my eyes and thought for more than 2 seconds about it.

PomBear

MarkK wrote: »

So suggesting a benefit is a "scaremongering"?

it gets results













in Nazi Germany

TerrorFirmer

I think we all accept both sides employ drastic exaggeration but as far as I'm concerned the 'No' side do it to completely unacceptable levels. 'Yes to jobs' is a generally positive phrase, 'Minimum Wage will be 1.84', 'Healthcare will be privatized', and my favorite, 'your sons will be shipped off to war zones' are utter fascist style drivel and are certainly not grounded in any sort of reality.

MarkK

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

Where does it mention anything about more jobs for Irish in the treaty?

The more jobs argument is nothing but an opinion

Yes, I agree it is opinion, but it is not scaremongering.

PomBear

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

TBH, that's a stupid argument. The Yes side is using as much scaremongering as the No Side is.
"It's simple- We need Europe"
"Yes for jobs"
etc. etc.
What has any of that to do with the Lisbon Treaty? We aren't voting on EU Membership and the treaty won't do much for jobs so the Yes Side's argument is just as unsubstantiated.

Infact, I wouldn't be surprised if the No side wins simply because of this. The No side is full of scaremongering like "Privatisation of Healthcare & Education" but whether it's true or not, if an average joe see's that, they'll think it's coming from the treaty. "We need Europe" is vague and has nothing to do with the treaty so it just looks like the Yes Side is dodging all the facts.

Except Cóir, what other party is scaremongering?

Rb

PomBear wrote: »

Except Cóir, what other party is scaremongering?

Sinn Fein and the UKIP are two of the more active ones that are also blatantly lying and scaremongering.

Purple Gorilla

PomBear wrote: »

Except Cóir, what other party is scaremongering?

As was mentioned, Sinn Féin, UKIP, Libertas, Socialist Party etc.

Daftendirekt

mangaroosh wrote: »

Hold on a second, this is all hypothetical. Equally relevant is to suggest that after we reject it and the British vote on it, if they reject it, and then the Czechs reject it, we quickly realise that this isn't actually what the people of Europe want at all.

It is also equally relevant to suggest that if it does not get ratified by us, then those in other countries may get a chance to have their say, either directly on Lisbon or in their general elections.

How about we reject it for the very reason that we have not been informed well enough about it, and let the EU this is the reason, and let them know we want open debate and discussion and more transparency, when it comes to the Treaty that promises transparency.


There are a number of very dangerous assumptions above, namely that the rest of the European people actually want this, when in fact they have not had a say on it.

Also, that those governments that are in power now, who make up the EU will be in power next time round. What happens if mroe Euro-pragmatic, or indeed Euro-sceptical parties get in, and look negatively at the fact that we voted Yes.

We don't actually get left behind if we vote No do we? This again is just part of the scaremongering from the political parties. Another reason to vote No.

First of all, parliaments are appointed to speak on behalf of the people and I'm not going to get into a debate on direct democracy vs representative democracy here. But since we haven't heard any amount of dissent from the people of the other EU members, we can safely assume that either the people are happy to go ahead with Lisbon or that they just don't care.

Secondly, the Czech parliament have already approved Lisbon. The president is however waiting until the Irish referendum is held before signing off on it. And by the way, the fact that he won't refuse outright to complete the ratification, should tell you something.

Thirdly, if the UK hold a referendum on Lisbon, then the same reasoning will apply to them. That is however, their issue to deal with as they see fit.

Fourthly, I don't know about my assumptions being 'dangerous', but I think they're far more reasonable than your assumptions that the other member states parliaments' are acting against the wishes of their own people. The other member states are functioning democracies, in which the power to govern resides in the people, and is exercised by their democratically elected representatives. They are not dictatorships.

Fifthly, it is, most emphatically, not scaremongering. I have never suggested that anyone should vote Yes simply out of fear. I have however, asked that if you do intend to vote No, please look at your reasons for doing so, and ensure they're good, solid ones. If you do that, then whatever happens after the referendum, you can be happy you did the right thing.

Sixthly, 'we have not been informed', 'we don't approve of our government', 'we don't like the Yes camp's slogans', 'our voting weight will be halved', 'our minimum wage will be reduced' - these are not good reasons to vote no. Some are just nonsense and some are outright lies. Also, I've seen so many posters responding to the points you specifically, have brought up, only for you to dismiss them with the assertion that a 'Yes to Lisbon=Yes to the way this country is run'. So I don't think it's really fair for you to assert you haven't been informed about Lisbon.

Seventhly, when the Dutch and French voted down the Constitution, they were able to explain their concerns to the other member states, and have them addressed. Hence, the Lisbon Treaty. If we vote No on Lisbon becasue of the above reasons, or similar reasons, we will not be in the same position as the French or Dutch after their rejection of the Constitution.

Rb

PomBear wrote: »

it gets results

in Nazi Germany

I believe that fits Godwin's Law. Congratulations.

PomBear

Rb wrote: »

Sinn Fein and the UKIP are two of the more active ones that are also blatantly lying and scaremongering.

Sinn Féin's main posters
More military spending- the treaty contains 22 pages on the extra militarisation of it's member states, many of the provisions enforce military spending. true.
Ireland 0.8%, Germany 18%, UK 12%(i think)- this is true, under the lisbon treaty, our say in Europe will be cut from 2% to 0.8%, this is due to population ratio. true.
Voting yes will decrease wages- the lisbon treaty has provisions that support more free trade of labour and citizens being paid their native minimum wage while in other countries. This drives the value of Irish labour down and will drive down the minimum wage and other wages...
Lisbon=Crushing Family Farms- Provisions in Lisbon make it ILLEGAL for a member state to invest in its own farming and fisherys. Norway, a non member state already has more right to fish in Irelands waters than Ireland do. Currently, Norway(not in EU) have more rights to fish in Irish Seas than Ireland do. true

roosh

Rb wrote: »

Yes, please refer to my points regarding embarrassing lunacy above. We'll need much better points to bring to the table if a No vote is returned than such nonsense.

So, telling the leaders of Europe that they are going to have to be open and honest with us from now on, that we are not just going to swallow their lies, and we won't just be bowled over because they asked us twice and gave us non-legally binding guarantees, is nonsense?

I don't know what kind of democracy you want but if what is on offer is it, then by all means vote yes.

Purple Gorilla

Rb wrote: »

Really? The Yes side is dodging the facts? In debate, the only side capable of using facts seems to be the Yes side because every single reason the No side can bring up is either a lie or is wrong.

Equal scare mongering? Really? You equate a statement like "Vote Yes for Jobs" with "Not on their lives" with a picture of a foetus and an elderly person, implying that voting Yes will put their lives in danger?

Do you really believe those two posters are equal? If so, we have a much, much bigger problem than people not bothering to inform themselves of the actual thing we're voting on, but a massive problem of irrationality.

Nothing the No side has brought to the table thus far has factual grounding in the text. To propose the campaigns are equal, or that the Yes campaign is actually in some way worse is just hilarious. I thought so too at one time, I must admit, but then I opened my eyes and thought for more than 2 seconds about it.

Ok so maybe I was using the "just as much scaremongering" argument a bit loosely, but the point still stands. You can't say that the No side is all unsubstantiated without accepting that the Yes side is quite unsubstantiated too which uses our current economic situation to further their argument. There are genuine arguments for the No side..they're just drowned out by all the other nutjob organisations who support a no vote

Bob_Harris

Rb wrote: »

Most countries have ratified and this has been done so by their democratically elected government representatives.

Yes, decided by their democratically elected government representatives, but not the people themselves.

Here in Ireland we have democratically elected government representatives who act without accountability, with little transparency, and seem pretty incompetent at what they do.

We vote them in for a set period, and after that they do whatever the hell they want without recourse.

They are after all politicians, winners of the national popularity contests.

What makes you think democratically elected government representatives in other countries are any different, and what they want is the will of the people who elected them based on lies (all campaign promises are lies).

roosh

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

TBH, that's a stupid argument. The Yes side is using as much scaremongering as the No Side is.
"It's simple- We need Europe"
"Yes for jobs"
etc. etc.
What has any of that to do with the Lisbon Treaty? We aren't voting on EU Membership and the treaty won't do much for jobs so the Yes Side's argument is just as unsubstantiated.

Infact, I wouldn't be surprised if the No side wins simply because of this. The No side is full of scaremongering like "Privatisation of Healthcare & Education" but whether it's true or not, if an average joe see's that, they'll think it's coming from the treaty. "We need Europe" is vague and has nothing to do with the treaty so it just looks like the Yes Side is dodging all the facts.

What actually makes it worse is the fact that all the main political parties in this country think it is perfectly fine to try and spoon feed us these lies to get us to vote Yes. We have to hold them to a higher standard than the No side because of what they represent.

If we vote Yes, we are telling them that it is fine to sell us empty rhetoric in the future, and remember, it is these guys that will be helping to run the EU. The EU isn't some mystical creature completely distinct from its member states, it is run by the same people that run the member states, the same people that didn't give their electorate a say and the same ones trying to get this pushed through by lying to us.

If we vote No, we are saying that this simply isn't good enough.

Rb

mangaroosh wrote: »

So, telling the leaders of Europe that they are going to have to be open and honest with us from now on, that we are not just going to swallow their lies, and we won't just be bowled over because they asked us twice and gave us non-legally binding guarantees, is nonsense?

I don't know what kind of democracy you want but if what is on offer is it, then by all means vote yes.

Yes, if your plan is to go an tell the EU we voted against a treaty they put to us because they weren't open enough with us (about what, I do not know), then it is absolute nonsense. They will want to know what your issue with the treaty is, if you can't even find one actual thing to do with the text you shouldn't be voting on it.

Sidetracking with loopy nonsense, like the whole No campaign has based itself on, will lead Ireland and Europe nowhere. Failing to provide actual feedback on the treaty will be an absolute embarrassment.

roosh

Rb wrote: »

Well, if a No vote is returned then it may indeed be a whole lot better to tell them that than the actual truth of the situation.

Ok so I take it you can't find a legitimate reason to vote against the text?

Its kind of difficult to find fault with something when it hasn't been explained properly and subject to open discussion. Also, when those telling you to vote in favour of it are shown to be lying as to the reasons, I feel it is grounds to vote No.

Rb wrote: »

Most countries have ratified and this has been done so by their democratically elected government representatives.

Our democratically elected officials have been before tribunals dealing with corruption. Are you suggesting that these people should be truested unquestioningly, even when they have been shown to be liars and when they don't give their people a say on something that affects them?

roosh

MarkK wrote: »

So suggesting a benefit is a "scaremongering"?

By implying that a Yes vote favours Jobs, implies that a No vote is against jobs. That's where the scaremongering is

Rb

Bob_Harris wrote: »

Yes, decided by their democratically elected government representatives, but not the people themselves.

The people voted for the Government which most accurately represented them and their needs and wants. Voted by the people, for the people and are making decisions nationally and internationally on behalf of their people. Democracy at work.

Bob_Harris wrote:

Here in Ireland we have democratically elected government representatives who act without accountability, with little transparency, and seem pretty incompetent at what they do.

Then hit the streets and revolt? If you're unhappy about it, then do something about it, don't whine online about it and take your emotions out on an innocent reform treaty that the Union have asked us to vote on.

Bob_Harris wrote:

We vote them in for a set period, and after that they do whatever the hell they want without recourse.

Then why are you voting them in for the set period?

Bob_Harris wrote:

They are after all politicians, winners of the national popularity contests.

Yes, but they're generally in the position they're in for a good reason, similarly there's a good reason most of the No campaigners are in the position they're in (nutjob organisations pushing their own agendas, failed politicians, political parties with close ties to terrorist organisations etc).

Bob_Harris wrote:

What makes you think democratically elected government representatives in other countries are any different, and what they want is the will of the people who elected them based on lies (all campaign promises are lies).

That's not my problem. If they're unhappy with their system, they can do something about it. So far we're not seeing riots over not being able to vote, so I take it most are happy with the system they have. Although, I'm sure like here they've a few of their own nutjobs who like to drag their feet whenever they're given the chance.

Daftendirekt

mangaroosh wrote: »

Our democratically elected officials have been before tribunals dealing with corruption. Are you suggesting that these people should be truested unquestioningly, even when they have been shown to be liars and when they don't give their people a say on something that affects them?

And yet, they keep getting voted back in.

(Which doesn't really matter in the case of Ireland anyway, since thanks to Crotty, we need a referendum)

Rb

mangaroosh wrote: »

What actually makes it worse is the fact that all the main political parties in this country think it is perfectly fine to try and spoon feed us these lies to get us to vote Yes. We have to hold them to a higher standard than the No side because of what they represent.

If we vote Yes, we are telling them that it is fine to sell us empty rhetoric in the future, and remember, it is these guys that will be helping to run the EU. The EU isn't some mystical creature completely distinct from its member states, it is run by the same people that run the member states, the same people that didn't give their electorate a say and the same ones trying to get this pushed through by lying to us.

If we vote No, we are saying that this simply isn't good enough.

What isn't good enough? The treaty that you apparently have absolutely no knowledge about, bar the few lies you've been fed by fringe organisations such as Coir?

If you're not happy with the Government, refrain from voting on Lisbon and use your voice in the next GE. Or as I said, take to the streets and revolt.

"We voted No because we're not happy with Fianna Fail and the Green Party even though the treaty had nothing to do with them" - it would be justified for them to force treaties through in future if this is the best excuse we can come up with.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Its kind of difficult to find fault with something when it hasn't been explained properly and subject to open discussion. Also, when those telling you to vote in favour of it are shown to be lying as to the reasons, I feel it is grounds to vote No.

Explained to you properly? Sorry, you're on the internet, the IRC have a website, along with many, many other sources. The full version and the consolidated version are available. The only person to blame for you not knowing what is involved at this stage is you, and if you do not know what is involved, you shouldn't be voting on it.

The information is more than readily available, that is such a ridiculous excuse that I'm disgusted I actually acknowledged, but it's actually far more disgusting that people are actually still willing to use it. For fuck sake, people with such an attitude are exactly what is wrong with democracy.

mangaroosh wrote:

Our democratically elected officials have been before tribunals dealing with corruption. Are you suggesting that these people should be truested unquestioningly, even when they have been shown to be liars and when they don't give their people a say on something that affects them?

Then vote against them, you seem to be capable of voting against other things for completely spurious reasons so I would hope you're capable of voting against Fianna Fail.

I trust our elected officials over anyone on the No side and PARTICULARLY those who claim that the information isn't even available to them.

roosh

Rb wrote: »

Really? The Yes side is dodging the facts? In debate, the only side capable of using facts seems to be the Yes side because every single reason the No side can bring up is either a lie or is wrong.

Equal scare mongering? Really? You equate a statement like "Vote Yes for Jobs" with "Not on their lives" with a picture of a foetus and an elderly person, implying that voting Yes will put their lives in danger?

Do you really believe those two posters are equal? If so, we have a much, much bigger problem than people not bothering to inform themselves of the actual thing we're voting on, but a massive problem of irrationality.

Nothing the No side has brought to the table thus far has factual grounding in the text. To propose the campaigns are equal, or that the Yes campaign is actually in some way worse is just hilarious. I thought so too at one time, I must admit, but then I opened my eyes and thought for more than 2 seconds about it.

Nothing the Yes side has brought forwards has been factual either, and these are the guys looking for us to give them more power. These are our political leaders. I find it far more worrying that they are willing to lie to us. Plus, from what I've seen, the No campaign has told no lies, nor do I believe they would be allowed to.

What they have done is draw attention to issues that are of concern to many people.

The only side I have heard actually quote the Treaty (and I'm talking about the actual campaigners, not us on here) has been the No side, and any thime they have, the Yes side have avoided the issue, preferring instead to refer back to their fallacious argument of "we have prospered under Europe therefore we should vote yes"


You should probably think about the campaings again and see what the political leaders of this country are trying to fob you off with, and realise that your vote will send them a message as to the acceptability of this.

Also, look at how the leaders of Europe have sought to ratify a treaty that is supposed to bring more openess and transparency. It has been anything but, and is therfore tainted before it ever comes to the poll.

Ask yourself, who has more responsibility to you the political leaders of this country or Cóir? Ask yourself are you willing to accept the same type of approach adopted by Cóir, from the political leaders of this country? Ask yourself are you happy to have the leaders of Europe just foist even more, and furhter reaching legislation on you, without a say?

If you are willing to accpet all of that, then by all means, vote Yes.

Johnboy1951

I have decided to vote YES this time out ........ if I am persuaded that I should.

I will vote NO by default otherwise.

So far most of those I have heard from who are voting yes refer to Jobs and potential loss of investment if we do NOT vote Yes.
This points, IMO, to a criminal misleading of the electorate by those who want a YES outcome.
Another reason I should vote NO.

I do not want to hear anything at all about reasons I should vote NO or who might be advocating such an outcome. That is not at all relevant to me.

If I am to vote to change the status-quo then I must be presented with a persuasive argument to do so.

To date all the rhetoric I have heard has not at all addressed this.

Bickering about who said what and who lied the most is absolutely pointless and a total waste of time.

Before I vote I hope to again read the text and try to imagine the WORST case scenario.

I will then make a judgement on politicians of all colours and gauge my trust in them

---

if I cannot trust the politicians not to take advantage of whatever may be possible and unacceptable in the 'treaty' then it must be a NO.

The YES campaigners do not seem to have any persuasive arguments why I should vote yes.

Nonetheless I will keep listening in the hope that they might eventually come up with some.

BTW, yes I am aware that SOMETHING must be done to accommodate new entrants etc etc. I am not yet convinced THIS is the best or only way to do so.

Regards.

roosh

Daftendirekt wrote: »

And yet, they keep getting voted back in.

(Which doesn't really matter in the case of Ireland anyway, since thanks to Crotty, we need a referendum)

Should we hand them even more power though?

Dinner

PomBear wrote: »

Ireland 0.8%, Germany 18%, UK 12%(i think)- this is true, under the lisbon treaty, our say in Europe will be cut from 2% to 0.8%, this is due to population ratio. true.

Sinn Fein forgot to mention how QMV works, thats only half the story. There are numerous threads on this very issue which go into detail ablout how this has little effect on our actual say in Europe.

By only giving half the story the paint a picture of Germany being able to steam roll us, playing into peoples fears.

PomBear wrote: »

Voting yes will decrease wages- the lisbon treaty has provisions that support more free trade of labour and citizens being paid their native minimum wage while in other countries. This drives the value of Irish labour down and will drive down the minimum wage and other wages...

This just isn't true. Not even a little bit. Any worker in our country must be paid Irish minimum wage. There's no 2 ways about it. To say otherwise is lying.

Bob_Harris

Rb wrote: »

The people voted for the Government which most accurately represented them and their needs and wants. Voted by the people, for the people and are making decisions nationally and internationally on behalf of their people. Democracy at work.

Or the illusion / delusion of "Democracy at work". We vote them in, they do what they want.

Rb wrote: »

Then hit the streets and revolt? If you're unhappy about it, then do something about it, don't whine online about it and take your emotions out on an innocent reform treaty that the Union have asked us to vote on.

Nah I'm to apathetic like the majority of the Irish.

Rb wrote: »

Then why are you voting them in for the set period?

I don't recall there being an option on the ballot paper to enter in a time frame I wanted x candidate to be in office for.

Rb wrote: »

Yes, but they're generally in the position they're in for a good reason

I respectfully disagree.

Rb wrote: »

That's not my problem. If they're unhappy with their system, they can do something about it. So far we're not seeing riots over not being able to vote, so I take it most are happy with the system they have. Although, I'm sure like here they've a few of their own nutjobs who like to drag their feet whenever they're given the chance.

I believe that the people of Europe don't care about Lisbon, but if force to vote, the majority would vote no.

Daftendirekt

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I have decided to vote YES this time out ........ if I am persuaded that I should.

I will vote NO by default otherwise.

So far most of those I have heard from who are voting yes refer to Jobs and potential loss of investment if we do NOT vote Yes.
This points, IMO, to a criminal misleading of the electorate by those who want a YES outcome.
Another reason I should vote NO.

I do not want to hear anything at all about reasons I should vote NO or who might be advocating such an outcome. That is not at all relevant to me.

If I am to vote to change the status-quo then I must be presented with a persuasive argument to do so.

To date all the rhetoric I have heard has not at all addressed this.

Bickering about who said what and who lied the most is absolutely pointless and a total waste of time.

Before I vote I hope to again read the text and try to imagine the WORST case scenario.

I will then make a judgement on politicians of all colours and gauge my trust in them

---

if I cannot trust the politicians not to take advantage of whatever may be possible and unacceptable in the 'treaty' then it must be a NO.

The YES campaigners do not seem to have any persuasive arguments why I should vote yes.

Nonetheless I will keep listening in the hope that they might eventually come up with some.

BTW, yes I am aware that SOMETHING must be done to accommodate new entrants etc etc. I am not yet convinced THIS is the best or only way to do so.

Regards.

Hi Johnboy,

Have a look at this post.

These are the 10 best reasons for a Yes vote, all completely factual, and backed up with reference to the treaty. Not waffle or slogans.

Have a read, and if you have any questions, there're plenty of people on this forum who can answer them.

PomBear

Dinner wrote: »

Sinn Fein forgot to mention how QMV works, thats only half the story. There are numerous threads on this very issue which go into detail ablout how this has little effect on our actual say in Europe.

By only giving half the story the paint a picture of Germany being able to steam roll us, playing into peoples fears.

So the Yes voters aren't lying about keeping our commissioner?
Compare Sinn Féin's campaigns to Fianna Fail's, Labour's, Fine Gael's, IrelandforEurope's etc. and you'll see who's doing the scaremongering.

Dinner wrote: »

This just isn't true. Not even a little bit. Any worker in our country must be paid Irish minimum wage. There's no 2 ways about it. To say otherwise is lying.

See the case of Latvian workers in Sweden

MarkK

mangaroosh wrote: »

Plus, from what I've seen, the No campaign has told no lies, nor do I believe they would be allowed to.

Well if there is a Yes vote I will look forward to dropping my daughter off at the abortion clinic and my granny off to be euthanased on my way to my €1.84 an hour job.

Rb

mangaroosh wrote: »

Nothing the Yes side has brought forwards has been factual either, and these are the guys looking for us to give them more power. These are our political leaders. I find it far more worrying that they are willing to lie to us. Plus, from what I've seen, the No campaign has told no lies, nor do I believe they would be allowed to.

What they have done is draw attention to issues that are of concern to many people.

The only side I have heard actually quote the Treaty (and I'm talking about the actual campaigners, not us on here) has been the No side, and any thime they have, the Yes side have avoided the issue, preferring instead to refer back to their fallacious argument of "we have prospered under Europe therefore we should vote yes"


You should probably think about the campaings again and see what the political leaders of this country are trying to fob you off with, and realise that your vote will send them a message as to the acceptability of this.

Also, look at how the leaders of Europe have sought to ratify a treaty that is supposed to bring more openess and transparency. It has been anything but, and is therfore tainted before it ever comes to the poll.

Ask yourself, who has more responsibility to you the political leaders of this country or Cóir? Ask yourself are you willing to accept the same type of approach adopted by Cóir, from the political leaders of this country? Ask yourself are you happy to have the leaders of Europe just foist even more, and furhter reaching legislation on you, without a say?

If you are willing to accpet all of that, then by all means, vote Yes.

Sorry but this either confirms that you're a troll or you've such a level of ignorance that I believe my cat is more informed about the referendum than you are, and he's probably more open to discussions on it. On that note, good luck with it, I'm not discussing the matter with you any further.

Dinner

PomBear wrote: »

So the Yes voters aren't lying about keeping our commissioner?

No they're not lying about keeping our Commissioner. A Yes vote means we will keep our Commissioner, a no vote and we still go on under Nice which requires the size of the Commission to be reduced by 2011, I think it is.

PomBear wrote: »

See the case of Latvian workers in Sweden

The Laval case could NOT happen in Ireland. Sweden does not have a national minimum wage in place (we do) I believe they also didn't have a Collective Bargaining agreement in place either. It was for that reason that Laval could pay it's Latvian workers the Latvian minimum wage. In Ireland they would have to pay Irish minimum wage.

Bob_Harris

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Hi Johnboy,

Have a look at this post.

These are the 10 best reasons for a Yes vote, all completely factual, and backed up with reference to the treaty. Not waffle or slogans.

Have a read, and if you have any questions, there're plenty of people on this forum who can answer them.

I'm in a similar position to Johnboy.

By default it is a No unless there is a more than decent, multiple reasons to vote yes. I think all voters should approach it in this way when one option (Yes) will change things, and the other option (No) will not.

I've read that post and it's just not doing it for me.