Proud to vote NO..consider your Europeans who could not vote

zuroph

major bill wrote: »

so ban anybody that dears question the mods:rolleyes:

you question them in another forum.. helpdesk. This keeps the forums clean, and is a sitewide policy.

However, if a yes vote goes through,German Mods will be writing your posts for you, and signing your name to them. :pac:

ghost_ie

major bill wrote: »

how do you know they want it? were they asked? were they giving a referendum? eh no so we dont know if they do or they dont, all we know is the british were promised a referendum but didnt get one due to their government known too well that they would reject it.The dutch and the french both rejected the the same treaty.

But we do know how they'd vote if they were given the chance. Our very own Commissioner, Charlie McCreevey, said that if given the chance to vote, 95% of the European electorate would vote against the Treaty

Rb

major bill wrote: »

how do you know they want it? were they asked? were they giving a referendum? eh no so we dont know if they do or they dont, all we know is the british were promised a referendum but didnt get one due to their government known too well that they would reject it.The dutch and the french both rejected the the same treaty.

The French and Dutch rejected the European Constitution, a document that proposed a European National Anthem, flag and a few other things that the French and Dutch hated. These have since been taken out, and since their concerns have been addressed, like ours have this time, it was ratified through their democratically elected Government as everything should be A OK.

There has been no revolution, no overthrowing the Government, the only protests have been held by handfuls of Euro-skeptics, so it assumed that people are happy with what they have got. They *can* do something about it they're not, afterall, yet there isn't the slightest inclination that they're not.

Throughout Europe there are virtually no Protests, with the exception of, again, handfuls of nutjob fringe groups who'll presumably protest against anything EU, like our good Sinn Fein do.

So, as said, evidence suggests that the majority are happy with the document and until you can prove, and the onus is on you here, that the majority are NOT happy, then it should not be a concern going to the polls on Friday.

That would require quite a bit of research and reporting, so I somehow don't see it as feasible, so realistically you should just drop it as a protest point and particularly if you plan on using it as an excuse to vote against this treaty.

rebelmind

dRNk SAnTA wrote: »

Every single parliament in europe will ratify the treaty - each EU country is a democracy. Thinking you'll be doing other countries a favour by voting against something they want is the height of arrogance.

Correction.
The parliaments/establishments of those countries, NOT THE PEOPLE.
What part of democracy do you not understand?
Especially when the answer is a NO, (from the people).
This is the kind of mindless stuff one encounters in such forums.

Scofflaw

ghost_ie wrote: »

But we do know how they'd vote if they were given the chance. Our very own Commissioner, Charlie McCreevey, said that if given the chance to vote, 95% of the European electorate would vote against the Treaty

That's a very poor piece of reasoning. Charlie McCreevy says something - so it must be true?

We don't know how they'd vote - all we know is (a) how No voters would like to think they'd vote, and (b) how Charlie McCreevy thinks they'd vote. Neither of those amount to anything approaching facts.

regards,
Scofflaw

major bill

Rb wrote: »

If I had the advisors that Brian Cowen and Charlie McCreevey have, I doubt I'd bother reading the treaty myself. Their advisors are people far, far more savvy with such documents and could advise, as is their role, Cowen or whoever on what was contained in the text.

Personally if I had to choose between having our Taoiseach take time out of running the country right now to sit down and sift through the full treaty, and remain where he is and have a highly educated expert tell him the facts on it while he gets on with his job, I'd pick the latter.

but he's the prime minister of this country thats his job surely if he wants us to vote yes and critise us in the way he did in the last vote he could take time out and read the bloody thing.This is a man who blatantly lies to the irish people and we are supposed to trust him and his cabinet of thieves and vote yes to lisbon.

Rb

ghost_ie wrote: »

But we do know how they'd vote if they were given the chance. Our very own Commissioner, Charlie McCreevey, said that if given the chance to vote, 95% of the European electorate would vote against the Treaty

Maybe he's assuming they're the same as the lazy, selfish slobs who turned up at the polls last time and voted against a treaty they knew nothing about because they knew nothing about it? Or that people would exercise their anti-establishment muscles on a treaty with nothing to do with their current Government? Or that people would derive mad explanations from it, like those accusing the treaty of being an introduction to microchipping children.

If our results are anything to go by, then yes, it is possible it would get shot down purely because the treaty is far too complex for the majority of idiots who feel they have to exercise their right to vote on it.

However, if one had to sit a test before voting on it, a basic enough test, I believe the results would be far, far different.

hatrickpatrick

^ Many here worship representative democracy to the point of claiming "the people only have the right to elect a government and then hand absolute power over to that government and no matter what they do, put up with them for the fixed amount of time before the next election". To me that view is completely undemocratic, but that's their opinion and they are entitled to it.

My own personal opinion is that the people should be able to call a referendum of no confidence in the government at any time and kick them out of office if they get a high enough percentage in favour of this. I also think that as much decision making as possible should be put in the hands of local councils rather than the Dail, which also gives the people much more direct control over their representatives. The key word is represent. They are meant to represent our views, not tell us to change our views to match theirs!!! We're not supposed to be representing THEIR view when we go to the polls...

Scofflaw

rebelmind wrote: »

Correction.
The parliaments/establishments of those countries, NOT THE PEOPLE.
What part of democracy do you not understand?
Especially when the answer is a NO, (from the people).
This is the kind of mindless stuff one encounters in such forums.

rebelmind, you don't know how they'd vote. You're making an assumption to suit how you would like things to be. In the process, you're dismissing the entire apparatus of Western democracy in favour of "looking into your heart" and divining as if by magic that people would have voted your way.

It's bunkum - and you'd have no hesitation recognising it as such in any other context.

regards,
Scofflaw

Rb

rebelmind wrote:

Correction.
The parliaments/establishments of those countries, NOT THE PEOPLE.
What part of democracy do you not understand?
Especially when the answer is a NO, (from the people).
This is the kind of mindless stuff one encounters in such forums.

The parliaments/establishments are democratically elected representatives of the people. That is how it works.

What part of democracy do you actually understand? Since you like to use the word so much?

Mindless stuff one encounters in such forums? Such forums as what? I must applaud your attempt with that sentence, however you've failed miserably in execution.

However, it is quite amusing that you, of all posters, accuse others of posting "mindless stuff" when you seem to be unable to back up a single statement, nor address any form of confrontation on a point you've introduced.

I wouldn't suggest joining a debating team or society anyway.

major bill

Rb wrote: »

Maybe he's assuming they're the same as the lazy, selfish slobs who turned up at the polls last time and voted against a treaty they knew nothing about because they knew nothing about it?.

whatever about your own agenda and that RB no need for insulting people.

Colpriz

Rb wrote: »

If I had the advisors that Brian Cowen and Charlie McCreevey have, I doubt I'd bother reading the treaty myself.

So thats why we/the rest of you dont believe you..coz you couldnt be bothered..you were elected to represent a Nation..us..Ireland..and you failed..not matter who you got to be your advisors..they wernt elected to be the the advisors of the Irish People who eleclted you in good faith..admit your failures FF, tell the Irsih public.. you failed to educate the population 1st time round, yes/no hangs on our vote now, surely a democratic Europe would see that and call for a vote across Europe..NO!

zuroph

just a quick question, why are the no campaigners on here totally incapable of effectively quoting a post? I've lost count of the posts with quotes not surrounded by tags.

Rb

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

^ Many here worship representative democracy to the point of claiming "the people only have the right to elect a government and then hand absolute power over to that government and no matter what they do, put up with them for the fixed amount of time before the next election". To me that view is completely undemocratic, but that's their opinion and they are entitled to it.

Do you think we should be voting on this treaty? What do the results of Lisbon I say to you about the referendum process on such a document?

hatrickpatick wrote:

My own personal opinion is that the people should be able to call a referendum of no confidence in the government at any time and kick them out of office if they get a high enough percentage in favour of this. I also think that as much decision making as possible should be put in the hands of local councils rather than the Dail, which also gives the people much more direct control over their representatives. The key word is represent. They are meant to represent our views, not tell us to change our views to match theirs!!! We're not supposed to be representing THEIR view when we go to the polls...

But we're not...?

They asked us in Lisbon I if we wanted this treaty or not, we said No, primarily because we knew nothing about it but then on another host of spurious reasons that came across as excuses or a last minute effort.

They then addressed those issues and are asking us "Ok guys, we've addressed the issues in the most effective way, so now that we've done that what do you think of the document now?", while people such as the IRC have went on information campaigns.

Technically we should all be in a completely different state of mind, with new points to debate based on the treaty contents since we're now in what should be good shape after the feedback on Lisbon I.

However, instead we find ourselves dealing with the same lies (such as Abortion and taxation) from the same people, and now more nut jobs, more people who didn't bother to read the many sources available etc etc.

They want OUR views! |They're doing what they can to get OUR views across and secure guarantees based on OUR views....yet it's still not good enough apparently. Instead people are now finding even more spurious reasons to vote against it, such as the campaign run by different political parties.

Why? Because there genuinely isn't a reason to vote no this time, simple as that.

And that, my friend, is why we're seeing nutjob after nutjob posting threads calling for a No here, with a body of text that has nothing to do with the treaty we're voting on. It's a shame, but we're still airing our views, not those of our representatives.

hatrickpatrick

Is anyone HONESTLY going to actually try and say that Cowen should trust his advisors?

the same people who told him as recently July 2008 that "the fundamentals of our economy are still strong" when anyone with half a brain knew the **** had hit the fan back in November '07?

The same geniuses who then told him that 2008 would be a bad year but that we'd be all fine and dandy again by the end of 2009?

Worst. Argument. Evar.

Rb

major bill wrote: »

whatever about your own agenda and that RB no need for insulting people.

Sorry but if people are going to shoot down something they know nothing about, because they know nothing about it despite many resources being available, they deserve to be insulted. It is lazy, selfish behaviour. That treaty took people so much time and effort, and money, to create and we have idiots who are turning up at the ballot boxes going "Hurrrr, I didn't read informations so Is voting no!! because I can!!!" , it is an insult to democracy and those who've put the work into this and believe in it. Those people deserve whatever they get and I'd say that in any nature/walk of life they happen to take this attitude towards.

The worst part is that these people occupied the majority of the No vote last time, and are trying to find excuses this time.

Rb

Colpriz wrote: »

Rb wrote: »

If I had the advisors that Brian Cowen and Charlie McCreevey have, I doubt I'd bother reading the treaty myself.

So thats why we/the rest of you dont believe you..coz you couldnt be bothered..you were elected to represent a Nation..us..Ireland..and you failed..not matter who you got to be your advisors..they wernt elected to be the the advisors of the Irish People who eleclted you in good faith..admit your failures FF, tell the Irsih public.. you failed to educate the population 1st time round, yes/no hangs on our vote now, surely a democratic Europe would see that and call for a vote across Europe..NO!

Ok this is bordering lunacy now, if you start making coherent points I'll address them in the future but any more of this rambling nonsense and I'm just going to ignore it.

major bill

zuroph wrote: »

just a quick question, why are the no campaigners on here totally incapable of effectively quoting a post? I've lost count of the posts with quotes not surrounded by tags.

because we are all incapable of doing so as we are nutjobs with half a brain simply using the pc in grange gorman to get our points across before pill and bed time.

Colpriz

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Is anyone HONESTLY going to actually try and say that Cowen should trust his advisors?

the same people who told him as recently July 2008 that "the fundamentals of our economy are still strong" when anyone with half a brain knew the **** had hit the fan back in November '07?

The same geniuses who then told him that 2008 would be a bad year but that we'd be all fine and dandy again by the end of 2009?

Worst. Argument. Evar.

so lets believe them again..mighty craic next budget..Evar?????????

zuroph

major bill wrote: »

because we are all incapable of doing so as we are nutjobs with half a brain simply using the pc in grange gorman to get our points across before pill and bed time.

but you successfully quoted me, so now you must vote yes. muhahaha.

dRNk SAnTA

major bill wrote: »

because we are all incapable of doing so as we are nutjobs with half a brain simply using the pc in grange gorman to get our points across before pill and bed time.

If only there was a pill

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

^ Many here worship representative democracy to the point of claiming "the people only have the right to elect a government and then hand absolute power over to that government and no matter what they do, put up with them for the fixed amount of time before the next election". To me that view is completely undemocratic, but that's their opinion and they are entitled to it.

My own personal opinion is that the people should be able to call a referendum of no confidence in the government at any time and kick them out of office if they get a high enough percentage in favour of this. I also think that as much decision making as possible should be put in the hands of local councils rather than the Dail, which also gives the people much more direct control over their representatives. The key word is represent. They are meant to represent our views, not tell us to change our views to match theirs!!! We're not supposed to be representing THEIR view when we go to the polls...

No, that's a straw man. Our point is that people can choose direct democracy or representative democracy - or a mixture of the two - and have done so.

What you want is to say that they made the wrong choice in choosing representative democracy (or, at least, in choosing to ratify treaties using representative democracy). That doesn't wash - whether one prefers representative or direct democracy, one has to respect what other nations have chosen for their affairs.

cordially,
Scofflaw

major bill

Rb wrote: »

Sorry but if people are going to shoot down something they know nothing about, because they know nothing about it despite many resources being available, they deserve to be insulted. It is lazy, selfish behaviour. That treaty took people so much time and effort, and money, to create and we have idiots who are turning up at the ballot boxes going "Hurrrr, I didn't read informations so Is voting no!! because I can!!!" , it is an insult to democracy and those who've put the work into this and believe in it. Those people deserve whatever they get and I'd say that in any nature/walk of life they happen to take this attitude towards.

The worst part is that these people occupied the majority of the No vote last time, and are trying to find excuses this time.

sorry but a load of people i have been taking too are voting yes on the simple grounds that '' we need europe to create jobs and my local politician says i should''

pot and kettle black.;) they are on both sides my friend

Rb

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Is anyone HONESTLY going to actually try and say that Cowen should trust his advisors?

Absolutely. If you can't trust the experts, who can you trust? Psychics?

These people aren't idiots, they're liable to make mistakes like all of us and it sucks when it happens, but I'd trust their word over anybody pushing for a No on this forum, that's a certainty.

the same people who told him as recently July 2008 that "the fundamentals of our economy are still strong" when anyone with half a brain knew the **** had hit the fan back in November '07?

How many of those people with half a brain used this knowledge to their advantage so? I've met many people who claimed to see this coming, why the hell didn't they sell their overpriced house and rent for a few months and then buy a castle?

At the end of the day, noone predicted how bad this was going to get. Those who claim to have done can feck off.

The same geniuses who then told him that 2008 would be a bad year but that we'd be all fine and dandy again by the end of 2009?

Worst. Argument. Evar.

Again, this is the researched reporting of experts in their respective fields and if they made a bad prediction so be it, I'd rather them be advising the Government than the lunatics we're seeing splurging crazy crap all over this forum recently.

I don't include you in that, for what its worth.

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, that's a straw man. Our point is that people can choose direct democracy or representative democracy - or a mixture of the two - and have done so.

What you want is to say that they made the wrong choice in choosing representative democracy (or, at least, in choosing to ratify treaties using representative democracy). That doesn't wash - whether one prefers representative or direct democracy, one has to respect what other nations have chosen for their affairs.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I haven't said that at all in this thread. All I've said it that people could (and should) be a little more civil to eachother, particularly when it comes to "foreigners" (and yes I realize some of them are actually plants) who come here to campaign "on behalf of their country" or whatever. Yes, there are arguments on both sides, yes, there are a lot of things you could say about this, but I still say that just being downright nasty to these people is completely uncalled for. It's not impossible to disagree with people without that sort of harshness. And you can tell me if I'm being a hypocrite here because I certainly don't want to be, but I don't recall ever actually participating in any of that during my time here.

Rb

major bill wrote: »

sorry but a load of people i have been taking too are voting yes on the simple grounds that '' we need europe to create jobs and my local politician says i should''

pot and kettle black.;) they are on both sides my friend

Ignorance on the No side far outweighs ignorance on the Yes side, and they're right, we do need Europe if we have any hope of attracting foreign investment again and creating jobs. It may not have much to do with the treaty, but it is true.

It's an aspiration for the confidence boost that comes with a Yes result for the treaty though, so it's not entirely irrelevant.

Also, they may be on "both sides", but I've yet to meet an uninformed Yes voter with crackpot theories and lunatic personalities. The same cannot be said about No voters. In fact, when canvassing for the locals and Europeans not so long ago, I was almost assaulted by nutjob republicans claiming that the Lisbon Treaty brought about the apocolypse or some other such shite.

Colpriz

Rb wrote: »

Absolutely. If you can't trust the experts, who can you trust? Psychics?

These people aren't idiots, they're liable to make mistakes like all of us and it sucks when it happens, but I'd trust their word over anybody pushing for a No on this forum, that's a certainty.



How many of those people with half a brain used this knowledge to their advantage so? I've met many people who claimed to see this coming, why the hell didn't they sell their overpriced house and rent for a few months and then buy a castle?

At the end of the day, noone predicted how bad this was going to get. Those who claim to have done can feck off.



Again, this is the researched reporting of experts in their respective fields and if they made a bad prediction so be it, I'd rather them be advising the Government than the lunatics we're seeing splurging crazy crap all over this forum recently.

I don't include you in that, for what its worth.

mods?

Rb

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I haven't said that at all in this thread. All I've said it that people could (and should) be a little more civil to eachother, particularly when it comes to "foreigners" (and yes I realize some of them are actually plants) who come here to campaign "on behalf of their country" or whatever. Yes, there are arguments on both sides, yes, there are a lot of things you could say about this, but I still say that just being downright nasty to these people is completely uncalled for. It's not impossible to disagree with people without that sort of harshness. And you can tell me if I'm being a hypocrite here because I certainly don't want to be, but I don't recall ever actually participating in any of that during my time here.

If Italy was having a referendum and I popped onto one of their national forums and asked them to vote in one way or another for the benefit of Ireland, I'd expect to be told to fuck off and rightly so.

rebelmind

Scofflaw wrote: »

rebelmind, you don't know how they'd vote.

Never said I did.
I'm talking principle here, not outcome.
The NO I mentioned was in reference to the results of Ireland/France/Holland re Lisbon, which might be a good indication of how the rest of Europe would vote.

You're making an assumption to suit how you would like things to be. In the process, you're dismissing the entire apparatus of Western democracy in favour of "looking into your heart" and divining as if by magic that people would have voted your way.

It's bunkum - and you'd have no hesitation recognising it as such in any other context.

Again, democracy is the will of the people, do you agree?
If so, let them decide, not their representatives.
My heart has nothing to do with this.
My knowledge of power & democracy does.

Scofflaw

major bill wrote: »

I will ban anyone accusing moderators of bias in threads in this forum.

Anyone wishing to make a complaint about bias in this forum may do so here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=30. If you can clearly prove that a moderator is biased on here there believe me the admins will do something about it.

Doing it in a thread in this forum will get you banned. Please don't do it.
quote

so ban anybody that dears question the mods:rolleyes:

No, just people who choose to do it in a thread in the forum, because the appropriate place is the Help Desk.

And on that note...

moderately,
Scofflaw